Auditor Admin Series 2, C/S Series 56HCO B 25 Aug. 1971 HOW TO GET RESULTS IN AN HGC, 5

Auditing is a team activity, 5 To improve tech results you must improve administration, 5 Auditing requires administration, 5 C/S and auditor attitude, 5 Organize to improve results, 6 Org wins and stats, 7 How to get on policy with tech organization, 7

Basic Auditing Series 1R HCO B 23 May 1971R THE MAGIC OF THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE, 63

Auditor and pc as two pole system to bring about an as-ising of mass, 63 Difficulties of auditing are difficulties of the communication cycle, 63 Basic tool of auditing is the communication cycle of auditing, 63 Basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes prior to the technique, 64

Basic Auditing Series 2R HCO B 23 May 1971R THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING, 65

Auditing goes in two stages: form a communication line; do something for the pc, 65 Aberrations are hard to keep, one has to work at it, 65 Process doesn't work until auditor has a comm line to pc, 66 Pc justifying himself and trying to uphold status is not in comm with auditor, 66 Theory of overrun, 67 Auditor must keep in his communication line with pc, 67

Basic Auditing Series 3HCO B 23 May 1971 THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES, 68

Itsa Maker line is pc's line to his bank, 68 Itsa line is pc's line to the auditor, 68 What's-it line is auditor's line to the pc, 68 Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, 68

Basically two communication cycles between auditor and pc that make up auditing cycle, 69 Acknowledgement cycle, 69 Six communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle, 71 Communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding, 71 Handling of pc origination, 71

Auditor response when he doesn't understand pc, 75 Invalidation—avoid use of "you" to pc, 75 Evaluation—auditor repeating what pc says, 75 Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the pc meant, 75 Don't drive in anchor points by shoving things at or gesturing toward pc, 76 Rock slammer, 76

What Itsa is, 78 Cure for auditor who is "letting the pc itsa", 79 Tech savvy, 79 Cure for auditor who can't control pc, 80

Basic Auditing Series 9HCO B 23 May 1971 COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES, 81

There are no additives permitted on the auditing comm cycle, 81 Mannerism additives, 81

Basic Auditing Series 10RHCO B 23 May 1971 R RECOGNITION OF RIGHTNESS OF THE BEING, 82

Idea of the additive data to the thetan, 82 Auditing is the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual, 82 Auditor must look at rightnesses of pc, not just wrongnesses, 82Pc's ability to as-is or erase in a session is directly proportional to the number of good indicators present in the session, 83 Pc's bad indicators vs. good indicators, 83

Basic Auditing Series 11HCO B 23 May 1971 METERING, 84

Auditor does not tell the pc anything about the meter or its reads ever, except to indicate an F/N, 84 Steering a pc, 84

A case with withholds will not clear, 270 What is a withhold, 270 Transgressions against different mores, 270 Survival mechanisms and withholds, 271 Data on pulling withhold, 271 End phenomena of an Integrity question, 272 Responsibility level and withholds, 272 Use of Integrity Processing Forms, 273

Best way to "miss" Integrity Processing question is to let the pc indulge in generalities or "I thought . . .", 279Handling general withholds and other people's withholds, 279How to get withholds off an "irresponsible pc", 279Withhold pulling, "don't know" version, 279

Natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds, 281Knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds, 281Wild animal reaction that makes man a cousin to the beasts, 281Handling critical, upset, ARC breaky pc, 282

Integrity Processing Series 13HCO B 16 Dec. 1972 HELP THE PC, 283

Use of steering in withhold pulling, 283 Pc is always willing to reveal, 283 It wouldn't read on the E-Meter if pc knew all the answer, 283

Integrity Processing Series 14HCO B 17 Dec. 1972 HAVINGNESS, 284

Havingness is the concept of being able to reach; no-havingness is the concept of not being able to reach, 284Havingness sags in the presence of withholds, 284Havingness must be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds, 284

Basic law on complexity, 309 The basis of aberration is a non-confront, 309 All subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption, 309 The subject of navigation, 309 Any complexity stems from an initial point of non-confront, 310 The basic thing man can't or won't confront is evil, 310 No-confront leads to aberration, 310

Study Series 1 HCO B 21 Sept. 1970 STUDY DEFINITIONS, 311

Study Series 2 HCO B 2 June 1971 CONFRONTING, 314

First requisite of any subject is the ability to confront the various components of the subject itself, 314 Student who learns rapidly has a high ability to confront that subject, 314 "Glib" students, 314 "Confronting" is actually the ability to be there comfortably and perceive, 315 Definitions of gradient scale, skipped gradient, flattening, overrunning, invalidation, 315 Gradient of confronting study, 315

Primary Rundown consists of Word Clearing and study tech; it makes a student super-literate, 323 Keynote of Primary Rundown is honesty, 323 Primary Rundown steps, 3 24 No Interference zone, 325 Primary Correction Rundown takes care of people who have trouble on the Primary Rundown, 325 Students who are or have been on drugs need a Drug Rundown before tackling Word Clearing Method 1, 325

HCO B 20 July 1972 PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN HANDLING, 326

Who PCRDs are given to, 326 The purpose of the PCRD is to get the person through the PRD, 326 Folder study, 326 Out lists, 326 Idle student, 327 Resistive students, 327 Pre-PCRD steps, 327 End phenomena of a Primary Correction Rundown, 328

Study Series 7BTB 4 Feb. 1972RD STUDY CORRECTION LIST REVISED, 329

Study Series 8 HCO B 26 Apr. 1972 THE GLIB STUDENT, 345

Glib student can confront the words and ideas; he cannot confront the physical universe or people around him and so cannot apply, 345 Handling the glib student, 345

Study Series 9HCO B 4 Jan. 1973 CONFRONT, 346

Definitions of confront, 346If one can confront he can be aware; if he is aware he can perceive and act, 346

Word Clearing any words on any test at any time is a High Crime, 420 Foreign language persons use translated tests, 420 Mis Us on tests, 420

Word Clearing Series 16RHCO B 31 Aug. 1971R CONFUSED IDEAS, 421

A misunderstood word exists at the bottom of a confusion, 421 Example of clearing up a confusion with Word Clearing Method 2, 421 There is not also misunderstood ideas; there is only the misunderstood word which breeds, then, huge towering wrong ideas, 421 Picture of a student's mind, 422

Word Clearing Series 17HCO B 2 Sept. 1971 WORDS AND POSTS, 423

Failed posts and duties trace back to misunderstood words, 423 Psychosis and misunderstood words are the only reasons for post failure, 423

At the bottom of all alteration of meaning or action is a misunderstood word, 426 Just before or with the point a person begins to alter will be found a misunderstood word, 426

Word Clearing Series 20HCO B 4 Sept. 1971 SIMPLE WORDS, 427

It takes a big dictionary to define simple words fully, 427 Stupidity is the effect of misunderstood words, 427 The earliest misunderstood word in a subject is a key to later misunderstood words in that subject, 427

Word Clearing Series 22R BTB 4 Sept. 1971 R HOW TO USE A DICTIONARY, 431

The alphabet, 431 How to break up a word, 431 Look up words in the definition, 431 Use a big enough dictionary, 432 Get the word used in sentences as long as it has TA, 432 Back track words—get the earlier misunderstood word, 432 Foreign words—get a dictionary of that language, 432

Word Clearing Series 23 HCO B 13 Sept. 1971 TROUBLE SHOOTING, 433

Word Clearing troubles, 433 Use of Word Clearing Correction List, 433 What is learned on a TR Course, 433 Word Clearer training, 434 Auditor training is not only for professional auditors, 434

Word Clearing Correction List must be used at the first hint of trouble in Word Clearing, 475 Word Clearing can become lengthy until Method One is completed, 475 Symptom of a person requiring Word Clearing Method I, 475 Interrelated uses of Word Clearing, 475

The fundamentals of art, 489 Art is a word which summarizes the quality of communication, 489 Perfection vs. communication, 490 An artist's relation to his audience, 491 Decline of art forms, 491

Art Series 2HCO B 29 July 1973 ART, MORE ABOUT, 493

How good does a work of art have to be to be good, 493 Art for self satisfaction vs. audience, 493 Technique of art, 494 What is technical expertise, 495 "Technical expertise adequate to produce an emotional impact" and "message", 496 Art quality and form, 496 Living itself is an art form, 496

Errors in a Touch Assist, 502 The nerve system of the body, 502 Importance of balance in Touch Assist, 502 Effect of shock on the muscles, 503 Demonstration by LRH, 503 On the assist you must go to extremities, 503 The spine, 504 Schools of healing, 504 Difference between mesmerism and hypnotism, 504 In assist you don't want rapport, 505

Auditor Admin Series

B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N

2 NOVEMBER 1972RRemimeo Revised & Reissued 5 August 1974 as BTBAll AuditorsAll C/Ses CANCELSAll W/Cers HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1972FES Unit Hat SAME TITLEQual Div Hats (The only revision is in the second last paragraph:the phrase “or BTB” has been added.)

Auditor Admin Series 1R

THE AUDITOR ADMIN SERIESFOR USE BY ALL AUDITORS

PURPOSE

Over the years much “know-how” has been developed in Auditor Administration.

The purpose of this Series is to bring a standard in Auditor Administration throughout the world.

DEFINITIONS

AUDITOR— A listener or one who listens carefully to what people have to say. An Auditor is a person trained and qualified in applying Scientology processes to others for their betterment.

ADMINISTRATION— Consists of the formation and handling of the lines and terminals involved in production.

AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION— would include:

1. The know-how of writing session reports.

2. The know-how of folder arrangement.

3. The know-how of all lines and terminals in the Tech Area. (Covered mainly in C/S Series 25.)

4. The know-how of other lines and terminals in the Org that directly relate to an Auditor getting out his product.

LRH QUOTES

“ALWAYS ADMINISTRATION IS A COMMUNICATION.”

“Administration is important because the Administration is a piece of truth.”

“‘Administration of a Folder’ is a responsibility and so is ‘The Administrative Lines of the Technical Division’.”

“NO AUDITOR HAS ANY BUSINESS BEING IGNORANT OF ADMINISTRATION. “

(Reference: TAPE 12.6.71 WELCOME TO THE FLAG INTERN COURSE)

C/S SERIES 56

C/S Series 56 can be considered as Auditor Admin Series 2 and comes next in this Series.

C/S Series 56 covers the function of Administration in obtaining excellent case results.

USE OF THE SERIES

The Auditor Admin Series is made into packs.

The packs are made available to Student Auditors, HGC Auditors, C/Ses, HGC Admin Personnel, Cramming, the Qual Library, and all Technical Executives.

The Series is added to Auditor and C/S Course Checksheets.

It is used by HGC Auditors and Internes to check if the Admin they are turning in is “by the book”.

It can be used by the C/S through the Cramming Officer to cram an Auditor on an Admin Error.

An Error would be handled by directing the Auditor to one specific HCO B or BTB in the Series that dealt with that specific point. Continuing Admin Errors would get the whole pack.

PRODUCT

The product of the application of this Series is Standard Auditor Administration throughout the world, with the viability of improved Auditing Delivery and Results.

Compiled by Training & Services Bur

Revised & Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

Obtaining excellent case results is an ADMINISTRATIVE not a wholly technical function.

Auditors and C/Ses are often weak on Administrative. They think general tech results improve only by more tech study. If they continue to think this way they wind up squirreling. For they are working on a wrong target for improvement, a wrong WHY or reason.

Auditing is a team activity. The day of the individual country doctor is dead. Even if an individual field auditor starts out as an individual he goes one of two directions—he overworks and squirrels himself into failure or he builds up a team—may only be a receptionist and an apprentice auditor but he is still building up a team. I have never seen individual auditors succeed over a long period. Failing to form or become part of a team, they eventually fade out or squirrel.

The reason is simple enough.

These rules apply:

TO IMPROVE TECH RESULTS YOU MUST IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION.

And I don’t mean just writing better in folders.

DEFINITION

ADMINISTRATION consists of the formation and handling of the lines and terminals involved in production.

Unless an auditor understands this fully, he will never insist on a Tech Sec, a Tech Establishment Officer, D of P, C/S, Examiner, Pages, Folder Admin and himself will begin to omit keeping a Folder Summary and then omit the session actions and then, with big loses, retire from it all.

If I were an auditor and saw some of these things missing, I’d be liable to say, “Are you guys kidding? I thought we were here to audit pcs.”

Without the correct pattern of lines and terminals YOU DON’T GET RESULTS, you get headaches, mad neighbors and refunds.

Auditing on lines, an auditor should regard himself as a highly skilled expert, a technical specialist whose work requires respect and service.

And Case Supervising on lines, a Case Supervisor should consider himself a sort of Czar whose word is so law even the Exec Director thinks several times before he approaches—duly servile of course and bowing the prescribed three times as he exits.

A Class XII on Flag is listened to by others with a hush even if he is only commenting on the weather.

These are the stars of the team. Their worldwide reputation for smooth flubless auditing is an administrative result!

Short of space, overloaded, short of admin personnel, turning out the highest well done hours in the world, Flag’s Div IV produces because of an Admin system.

The highest of these C/Ses and auditors goes to Cramming if he misplaces a comma or drops a TR 1.

If the sessions’ exams at Examiner drop from 90% F/N the whole place gets overhauled.

Folders are Folder Error Summaried by an FES section. The Folder Summary is kept up each session (or Cramming). The folder is studied and C/Sed. The D of P assigns the sessions. The C/S is done correctly (or Cramming). The folder travels on its lines. The tests are done.

In short it is a complex but constantly flowing pattern of moving pcs, folders and examinations interspersed with testing and interviews and re-registration.

There is a right way to do it.

RESULTS

If an org has only 65% of its sessions F/N VGIs at Examiner the right answer is to organize the place.

Why?

Well, the first answer is that the third dynamic is stronger than the first dynamic.

An auditor auditing alone is a first dynamic. The pc is a first dynamic. As it is the auditor plus pc that must be greater than the reactive mind, one can easily work the rest out.

If the auditor is part of a functioning third dynamic, not just an individual, the auditor plus pc versus the bank is a LOT more than the bank.

Another answer is that an auditor knows the pc, if only because of sessions, and personal opinion enters into it. That is not a pure technical view as a C/S’s must be.

Another answer is that an auditor in a group gets more auditing done.

Individually practicing auditors often fail because nobody is taking care of the auditor as a person. Further they get loses. No one sends them to Cramming. When they get loses they often start squirreling. Then they really get loses.

That ends them as auditors.

An auditor working in a good on policy organization is given service. He does get sent to Cramming. He does keep his tech updated. He gets wins. When he doesn’t he’s put back on standard tech. So he happily keeps going and makes lots of happy people.

So if I were auditing in a group I would insist as a condition of work that Div IV and Div V be good on policy divisions, fully organized with no nonsense.

I know whereof I speak. As a part-time duty I work as a consulting C/S with a good IV and a good V. Sometimes I have had to take over the whole C/S line. When the organization bogs in any way I know the whole thing is heading toward single- handing the lot. So I get the lines back in and get people to Cramming and get the F/N at Examiner ratio approaching 100% again.

Thus, the advice you get about C/Sing is live-live-live, not canned theory.

ORG WINS

Being on administrative lines to all orgs, I can tell you pointblank that

THEIR STATS DEPEND ON THEIR VOLUME AND QUALITY OF SERVICE.

That isn’t propaganda. It’s pure fact.

The F/N-no F/N at Examiner ratio tells you at once if Divs IV and V are organized and operating or if they are just fooling about.

At 50% to 75% F/N at Examiner the administrative functions of Divs IV and V are stinking bad. C/S Series 25 is out. Cramming is out. Hidden data lines exist. HCO Bs, books and tapes are not used.

The public, at that % of F/N, will stay away in droves. Registrars will go batty and adopt “Hot Prospect Systems”.

The staff will go low pay and the execs will be a perpetual dark shade of purple from yelling. The cash-bills ratio will be the subject of finance missions and the neighbors will be phoning the police.

Why?

Because an org is itself a technical delivery organization and 50% to 75% F/N at Examiner is an overt product.

The Academy has already failed to apply student study tech and word clearing. Qual is a joke.

There is no library of tech available and if available isn’t read.

The org as a tech service delivery unit is treating its public to a no-auditing situation and will get in trouble.

3 NOVEMBER 1972RReissued 18 September 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1972RSAME TITLERevised 7 February 1973

(Only revisions are drawings on following two pageswhere the staples were originally drawn incorrectly.)

Auditor Admin Series 3R

THE PC FOLDER AND ITS CONTENTS

The “current” folder being used for the Pc is arranged into four basic parts:

THE FOLDER

The Folder is a folded sheet of cardboard which encloses all the session reports and other items. The folder is foolscap size, light cardboard.

FRONT COVER ITEMS

The case Progress Sheet is a sheet which details the Levels of Processing and Training the Pc has acheived while moving up the Grade Chart. It also lists Incidental Rundowns and Set-up Actions the Pc has had. The Sheet gives at a glance the Pc’s progress to OT.

The Yellow Sheet is a sheet detailing each Correction List or Set of Commands which have been Word Cleared. It also lists the Pc’s current Havingness process and the type of cans the Pc uses.

The Folder Summary is written on sheets located inside the Front Cover and is an adequate summary of actions taken on a Pc in consecutive order.

The OCA Graph is a specially prepared graph which plots 10 traits of a Pc’s personality from a Personality Test taken by the Pc.

OCA = Oxford Capacity Analysis.

The Personality Test is also known as the APA = American Personality Analysis.

The Program Sheet is a sheet which outlines the sequence of actions, session by session, to be run on the Pc to bring about a definite result.

The Case Progress Sheet, Yellow Sheet and Folder Summary are stapled inside the Front Cover. The OCA Graph and Program Sheets are clipped over the Folder Summary with a big wide paper clip.

THE FOLDER CONTENTS

The Auditor’s C/S is a sheet on which the Auditor writes the C/S instructions for the next session.

The Exam Report is a report made out by the Qual Examiner when the Pc goes to Exams after session or goes on his own volition. It contains the Meter details, Pc’s indicators and the Pc’s statement.

The Summary Report Form is written by the Auditor after the session on a fill-in type standard form and is simply an exact record of what happened and what was observed during the session.

The Auditor’s Report Form is made out at the end of each session and is an outline of what actions were taken during the session.

The Worksheets are the sheets on which the Auditor writes a complete running record of the session from beginning to end, page after page, as the session goes along.

A Correction List is a list of prepared questions on a mimeoed sheet which is used by the Auditor for the repair of a particular situation, action, or Rundown.

An L&N List (Listing and Nulling List) is a list of items given by a Pc in response to a Listing Question and written down by the Auditor in the exact sequence that they are given to him by the preclear. Each list is done on a separate sheet.

A Dianetic Assessment List is a list of somatic items given by a Pc and written down by the Auditor with the reads marked that occur on the Meter.

A Miscellaneous Report is a report such as an MO Report, a D of P Interview, an Ethics Report, a Success Story, etc, which is put in the Pc’s folder and gives a C/S more information about the case.

The reports filed in the folder from one session consist of:

The Worksheets stapled together with the Auditor’s Report Form on Top. Any Correction List used goes under the Worksheets and is included in the stapling.

Any L&N Lists or Dn Assessment Lists are not so stapled but remain loose and are put under the other session reports.

On top of the stapled sheaf comes the Summary Report Form, then the Exam Report and then the Auditor’s C/S.

All the session reports are now paper clipped together.

Session Reports as above are put in the folder consecutively with more recent on top.

Any Miscellaneous Reports are filed appropriately at the correct chronological point in the folder.

THE BACK COVER ITEMS

A Dianetic Flow Table is a chronological list of Dn Items run, from earliest to latest, with the flows that have been run.

An FES (Folder Error Summary) is a summary of auditing errors in a folder and on a Pc’s case not corrected at the time the summary is done.

The Routing Form is the form that lists the Org terminals the Pc has to check through in order to arrive in the HGC and in the auditing chair.

The Invoice Form is a summary sheet of how much auditing a Pc has signed up and paid for, and how much of that has been delivered.

The Invoice Form is stapled to the back cover. The rest of the items are paper clipped inside the cover.

Compiled by: Training & Services Bur

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

4 NOVEMBER 1972Revised & Reissued 21 September 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 4 NOVEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 4

THE FOLDER

A Folder is provided for each pc. The folder is foolscap size, light card.

The pc’s name and Grade is printed (using a fat felt pen) on the front of the folder and also along the spine. It’s on the spine so you can pull it out of a stack, if they are lying in piles.

Folders of pcs on Advanced Course levels are marked “Confidential” and striped on the front cover with green tape for R6EW and Clear, and gold (yellow in practice because gold tape not so readily available) for OT I—VIII.

Expanded Dn folders are marked with red coloured tape, from the front cover round the back of the bind, so they can be picked out of a folder stack.

If an Org has two HGCs, coloured tape can be used similarly to distinguish which folder goes to which C/S.

Tape colour flashes so far in use are:

Red —Expanded Dianetic Folders

Green —Folders of pcs at Advanced Courses Levels R6EW and Clear

Gold —Folders of pcs at Advanced Courses Levels OT I—OT VIII

and these colours should not be used for any other purpose.

EXAMPLE:

This is the folder of pc Helen Long, OT IIIX, who is currently having Exp Dn auditing.

A rubber band or elastic garter is placed around each folder to prevent loss of contents and make for easier handling.

NEW FOLDERS

HGC Admin should not let the folders get too fat as this wrecks the folder and makes handling difficult.

When the current folder gets too fat (approximately 2l/2’’ or 6 cms) a new folder is started.

The Case Progress Sheet, Yellow Sheet, Folder Summary, OCA Graph and Program Sheets are all carried forward to the front of the new folder. The Invoice Form, Routing Form, Dn Flow Table and FES are also transferred to the back of the folder.

The new folder is given a folder number (for example 2) which is marked boldly on the bottom left-hand side of the front cover and along the spine.

The old folder which already is numbered (with the folder number 1) has the dates of the contents marked against the number 1 (on the front and on the spine).

i.e. (1) 25 MAR 71---------- 4 OCT 71

The fact of the change to a new folder is marked in on the Folder Summary.

Solo Folders are similarly given numbers SOLO 1, SOLO 2, SOLO 3, etc, and when a new Solo Folder is started, the change to a new folder is marked in the Folder Summary of the current HGC folder.

In this way a C/S can tell if he has all the folders.

It is the responsibility of HGC Admin (or Adv Courses Admin) to see that all the above is done.

DIANETIC FOLDERS

NO separate Dianetic folders are kept. All auditing reports of whatever type of action are simply filed chronologically in the current HGC folder.

The only separate category of folders is Solo Folders held by Advanced Courses.

STORAGE OF FOLDERS

Old folders and those of pcs not currently on auditing lines are filed in alphabetical order in a store.

A log book of pc folders is maintained. This includes the number of folders for each pc (and where stored if not in current use).

TRANSPORT OF FOLDERS

Folders are never handed to the pc. They are handled as per C/S Series 25.

When pc folders are sent to another Org (such as an AO or Flag) the folders are checked for completeness, packaged securely, and tied with string which is sealed (with a sealing wax).

A “Mail Slip” system is used to ensure that the folders are not lost in transit.

The mail slips are done in 3 copies: plain paper or 3 copy invoice books can be purchased.

The original is kept by the sender. The other two copies (and they must be dark and legible) go inside the mail pack. They may not be put in an envelope in the pack. They are left on the top visible.

The package is addressed to “The Director of Tech Services” of the Org to which it is being mailed.

On receipt of the folders, one of the copies is sent on normal dispatch lines back to the originating Org to complete the cycle.

NO ADMIN FOLDER

The practice of starting a separate “Admin Folder” to hold all the admin bits and pieces is not necessary and is not standard admin.

References: HCO PL 8 Aug 66 “OT COLOUR FLASH”

TAPE 7 Apr 72 Exp Dn Tape 3 “AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION”

Flag Order 2183 “THE MAIL SYSTEM” 8 Nov 69

Compiled by: Training & Services Bur

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

14 SEPTEMBER 1971 RAIssue IRevised 24 October 1972Revised & Reissued 28 July 1975 as BPLRemimeoCANCELSHCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1971RSAME TITLE

CASE PROGRESS SHEET

Each current HGC Pc folder is to have this sheet stapled to the inside front cover of the folder by Tech Services. The form is originally filled in by the FESer, C/S or Auditor (whoever makes a full and careful study of all the Pc’s folders). The form is kept up to date by the Auditor as the actions are completed and attested to.

PC’S NAME_______________________________________________

Please mark in the date each item was honestly attained in green; if falsely attained, mark it in red.

Amended by Training & Services Bureau

Revised & Reissued as BPL by Flag Mission 1234 2nd Molly Harlow

Approved by The Commodore’s Staff Aides and The Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

5 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue IIIRevised & Reissued 9 September 1974 as BTB(Revision in this type style)Remimeo CANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IIISAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 7R

THE FOLDER SUMMARY

The Folder Summary is written on sheets located on the inside of the Front Cover and is an adequate summary of the actions taken on a pc in consecutive order.

It is stapled inside the Front Cover of the pc’s current folder and requires the following data:

1. ADMIN DETAILS

Session date, length of time of session and admin time. When a new folder is started. The total time of a series of auditing sessions. When OCA taken. When an FES done.

2. PROCESS DETAILS

What was run and whether it ran. Mark an EP beside each action taken, or if it was not taken to EP mark in red UNFLAT, O/R, or whatever.

The listing question of an L&N action is written out in full.

R3R items are written out in full.

If an item or terminal R/Ses in session, it is noted in red on the Summary Report with the page number and circled.

Similarly an evil purpose arising in a session is marked in red with the date and circled.

3. EXAM REPORT

At the bottom of the process details mark F/N indicating an F/N occurred at the Examiner, or BER (red) if a Bad Exam Report. If TA was high or low at exam, it can also be noted.

4. ATTESTS

Date and what attested.

If pc sent to attest but did NOT this is noted.

5. ADVANCED COURSE DATA

Date started Advanced Course, Level, Date attested to Completion.

(The individual solo sessions are NOT noted but should be entered on a separate Folder Summary in the Advanced Course Folder.)

6. MEDICAL DATA

When pc reports sick.

Date and brief statement of illness.

Then a further entry when pc OFF M.O. Lines.

7. ETHICS DATA

Any Ethics cycles or Conditions.

A BLUE or BLACK pen is used for normal entries. A RED pen is used to mark any R/Sing item, Ev Purp, list or Dn item correction, BER, high or low TA at Exams, flubbed attest, medical action or Ethics cycle.

In the HGC the Auditor is responsible for keeping up this Summary after each session and immediately on receipt of a Medical Report or pc volunteered BER. It is standard part of the Auditor’s Session Admin.

When the pc goes into Advanced Courses all folders (HGC and any Advanced Course folders) go to the Advanced Course C/S who keeps the Case Progress Sheet, Yellow Sheet, and Summary Sheet in the HGC folder updated as outlined above.

The Solo Auditor keeps updated the separate Solo Folder Summary on the inside front cover of his current Solo Folder.

The Folder Summary Sheets are foolscap, divided into four columns. Below is an example of how the Folder Summary is kept:

FOLDER SUMMARY FORM

When a new pc starts auditing and the first folder is made up a copy of the attached form is stapled by two staples at the top to the inside front cover.

The form is mimeoed on lightweight paper so that it is not bulky.

The Auditor fills in this form as he progresses with the auditing.

New sheets are added as needed, earliest at the bottom to most recent on the top.

When a new folder is made up, ALL Summary Sheets are removed from the old folder and advanced to the inside cover of the new folder so that the completed Folder Summary of the case is always in the current HGC folder.

It is the HGC Admin’s responsibility to see that the above is done.

Reference: Tape 7 Apr 72 Exp Dn Tape 3 AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION

Compiled by Training & Services Bur

Revised & Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

5 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IVReissued 2 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IVSAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 8

OCA GRAPHS

The OCA Graph is a specially prepared graph which plots 10 traits of a pc’s personality from a Personality Test taken by the pc.

WHEN THE PC TAKES THE OCA TEST

Several OCA Tests can be taken by a pc during a series of intensives. Usually one is taken before an intensive to give the C/S information as to what is to be audited, and one is taken after a big win, at the end of a RD or at the completion of a Grade—as an indication of what has been achieved. This can however be overdone by too frequent use.

PLOTTING THE OCA TESTS

The results of the OCA (and an IQ Test) are entered on an OCA GRAPH.

A series of OCAs are drawn on the same graph to give an indication of the change that has occurred.

Each graph line is drawn in a different colour (red, blue, black, green) or in a different fashion (bold line, normal line, broken line, dotted line) so that each line of the graph can be distinguished. On the top of the graph a key is drawn that gives the date when each Test was done. The month is written in letters so no confusion on numbers occurs.

POSITION OF GRAPH

The graph is kept paper clipped on the inside cover of the folder (on top of the F/S and below the programs), so it can be taken out and the next OCA drawn in.

The answer sheet that the pc fills in is placed with the worksheets of that date, after the graph is drawn.

RESPONSIBILITY

It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that when the C/S requests an OCA, the pc is routed to Testing and the test gets done, and the results entered on the graph and the test sheets filed in the folder.

6 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue IIRevised & Reissued 15 July 1974 as BTB(The only change is “LRH” and References added to page 1, paragraph 1.) RemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IISAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 9R

THE PROGRAM SHEET

A program by definition is “the sequence of actions, session by session, to be undertaken on a case by the C/S in his directions to the Auditor or Auditors auditing the case” LRH, and is “any series of actions designed by a C/S to bring about definite results in a pc.” LRH (References: HCO B 23 August 1971, C/S Series 1, and HCO B 12 June 1970, C/S Series 2.)

THE THREE TYPES OF PROGRAMS

There are three types of programs:

1. THE PROGRESS (REPAIR) PROGRAM: to eradicate case mishandling by current life or auditing errors. This program is written on a red sheet.

2. THE ADVANCE (RETURN) PROGRAM: major actions to be undertaken to get the case back on the Class Chart from wherever he has erroneously gotten to on it. This program is written on a blue sheet.

3. THE BASIC PROGRAM: laid out in the Classification and Gradation Chart.

(Note: An Exp Dn Program is written on a green sheet.)

The Program consists of the pc’s name, the date, brief case notes of why the program is being written, and the actions numbered 1, 2, 3, etc to be done on the pc to bring about a definite result. The person writing the program prints his name at the bottom.

These Program Sheets are kept paper clipped on the inside of the Front Cover, earliest at the bottom to latest on top.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OFTHE C/S

A C/S works at completing the program that is topmost. As each step of the program is completed it is ticked off marked “DONE” with the date.

When the whole program is done, it is marked “PROGRAM DONE (DATE)”.

All flubs made in doing the program are marked in and repaired.

If while doing a blue (or green) program an extensive repair is undertaken then this is programmed on a red sheet and then this becomes the topmost program. The blue sheet should however be marked at the point it was left and can be resumed when the red one is done.

Any program retired because of new data about a case should be so marked with the date.

The auditor as C/S is responsible for marking off the programs as above.

EVIL PURPOSES AND R/Ses

Evil Purposes and R/S items are marked on the left-hand edge of the topmost program in red with the date and worksheet page number.

References: HCO B 12 June 70 C/S Series 2 PROGRAMMING OF CASES

TAPE 7 Apr 72 Exp Dn Tape 3 AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION

Compiled by Training & Services Bur

Revised & Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

However, any obvious manifestation that would be helpful for the C/S is noted.

Examples:

BIs Pc crying BIs Pc frowning VVGIs Pc radiant, skin tone very pink

STATE OF NEEDLE: This is important as different needle manifestations indicate different things, i.e. R/S, DN, RISE, etc.

Also on F/Ns note the size.

Small F/N = 1” to 2” Normal F/N = 2” to 3” Wide F/N = 3” to 4” Dial F/N = Floating from one pin to the other right across the dial Flopping F/N or Floating F/N or TA F/N = Can’t get the needle on dial, just falls over.

On this it is sometimes possible to get TA range, e.g. needle comes on dial at 2.3 and again at 2.5. This would be indicated as TA F/N = 2.5 - 2.3.

Size of F/Ns is important. A TA F/N at session end, to a small F/N at Examiner, would indicate something out.

F/N INDICATED TO PC: If F/N has been indicated to the Pc write YES, if not write NO.

SIGNATURE OF EXAMINER: The form is signed by the person doing the Exam along this line.

FOOTPLATES: If a Pc is audited on footplates he or she must be examined on footplates. This is noted by writing FOOTPLATES above the TA reading.

RED TAGS Definitions:

A FLOATING NEEDLE “is the idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as 1” or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-Meter calibrated with the TA between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs in on the Pc. It can occur after a cognition blowdown of the TA or just moves into floating. The Pc may or may not voice the cognition.” LRH

A RED TAG EXAM is where the Examiner sees any one of the following manifestations in a Pc after a session:

5. Sick report after session or within a few days of a Major Auditing Action.

6. Major Out Tech in session which could cause Pc trouble.

7. Flunked Declare? accompanied by a BER.

When a Red Tag Exam occurs the Examiner clips a red tag to the Exam Form. Red Tag folders must not be held onto by the Auditor until the end of the day. They go immediately to the C/S and get handled on a rush priority basis.

MEDICAL EXAM REPORTS

A Pc goes to the Medical Liaison Officer via the Examiner. The MLO writes up a report to the Ethics Officer. The Examiner takes a carbon copy (or copies the original Exam Form) and gives it immediately to the MLO and gets the original to Tech Services quickly. Tech Services pulls the folders and routes rapidly to the C/S or Staff C/S if a staff member is sick.

This MUST get into the Pc’s folder so the C/S does not order a major action done on a sick Pc.

The Exam Report is similarly handled when the Pc comes off MLO lines.

The MLO sends a daily report to the C/S on ALL persons on his lines with a final report when they route off with Exam attached.

LOCATION IN FOLDER

The Exam Report Form is put in the folder on top of the Auditor’s Report Form (or Summary Report if used).

Volunteered Exam Report Forms are put in the folder at the appropriate date.

It is the responsibility of Tech Services (HGC Admin) to see that these forms get into the folder.

(Important Note: This form is handled exactly as per HCO P/L of 26 Jan AD20 AND NO EXAMINER MAY EXAMINE UNLESS STARRATED ON THAT P/L, and HCO B 5 Mar 71 (C/S Series 25) AND AN E-METER COURSE. Students and pcs can be very upset if this post’s duties are not done correctly and org pc and course results ruined.)

After Session Qual Div (Place)

Volunteered Date

Medical Time

Pc or Pre OT name

Last Grade Attained

Grade, Course or Action Being Attested

Pc’s Statement (Write down exactly what pc says.)

TA Position and any BD Pc Indicators

State of Needle

F/N Indicated to pc

________________________________ Signature of Examiner

ROUTE THIS FORM TO TECH SERVICES WHICH ROUTES IT INTO THE FOLDER.

WHEN ILLNESS REPORTED MAKE THIS OUT WITH A CARBON UNDER IT AND ROUTE ORIG TO T/S AND FOLDER AND CARBON TO MO OR QUAL SEC.

6 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue VRevised & Reissued 28 July 1974 as BTB(Revision in this type sty/e)RemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972Issue VSAME TITLE

(Attach to this BTB—BTB 20 June 70,“Summary Report”.)

Auditor Admin Series 12R

THE SUMMARY REPORT FORM

The Summary Report Form is a report used simply as an exact record of what happened and what was observed during the session.

The form BTB 20 June 70, “SUMMARY REPORT” is used and the Auditor fills in the appropriate data.

USE OF SUMMARY REPORTS

With the introduction of C/S Series THE FANTASTIC NEW HGC LINE, Summary Report Forms were omitted from the admin procedure at Flag.

However, the use of Summary Report Forms is left entirely to the discretion of the C/S of an Org.

They are used extensively in training.

EVERY STUDENT AUDITOR ON COURSES AND CO-AUDIT MUST WRITE A SUMMARY REPORT FORM AFTER EACH SESSION.

It is a tool for increasing an Auditor’s obnosis of what goes on in a session. It teaches Auditors how to quickly and concisely analyze and report on a case.

FILLING IN THE REPORT

The Summary Report Form is filled in as follows:

1. The date.

2. The pc’s name and the Auditor’s name, in BLOCK letters.

3. The process run, the total tone arm action for the session and the length of the session in hours and minutes.

4. Goals are no longer set at the beginning of session but if the pc in passing mentions any goals he has attained, or more likely gains he has had in the session, these are noted at this point.

5. Aspects of running process—each of the questions 1 to 22 of the form are answered. Here write down briefly what the preclear was doing in the session. Do not write opinions with regard to what was happening or how the preclear was running the process. Here we are interested in the aspects of the case in relationship to the process or processes being run.

6. Ethics Report ) These are written on the Auditor’s C/S ) Sheet per C/S Series 25.7. Suggest )

The Summary should be done for the session given the preclear for the day. It is not stapled to the worksheets but is paper-clipped on top of the Auditor’s Report Form and beneath the Exam Report.

Two sessions in one day calls for only one Summary Report with the TA and data of each session.

It should be LEGIBLE and READABLE. If an Auditor’s handwriting is poor, it should be printed out by the Auditor.

Writing the reports should only take the Auditor 15 minutes to do at the most. Having just audited the preclear you should quite easily fill the report out.

(The only revision is under CONTENT OF WORKSHEET:“G. Reads” was added.)

Auditor Admin Series 14R

THE WORKSHEETS

The Worksheets are the sheets on which the Auditor writes a complete running record of the session from beginning to end, page after page, as the session goes along.

A Worksheet is always foolscap, 8 x 13 inches, written on both sides and each page is numbered, back and front, top center of page.

This is so an Auditor can say, “Now the R/S occurred on page 25,” which saves a lot of time. Further it gives the proper number of pages the session went.

The Worksheet is written in two columns. The Auditor writes down the left-hand column and then down the right-hand column.

CONTENT OF WORKSHEET

The most important parts of the session to be noted are:

A. When the TA goes up (on what?)

B. When the TA goes down (on what?)

C. When an F/N occurs (on what—any cog?)

D. When VGIs occur (on what?)

E. When BIs occur (on what?)

F. How the process ran (what commands are being run?)

G. Reads

TA and time notations should be made at regular intervals throughout the session.

When a process reaches EP—write in the pc’s cognition, circle the F/N and whether or not it was indicated, note the pc’s indicators, the time and TA.

When Two-Way Comming a subject it is essential that all items (terminals, statements, etc) that read are so marked on the worksheets—LF, LFBD. All reading items are circled in green after the session.

R/S items, Ethics situations, Ser Facs and Evil Purps are marked, after the session, by ringing them on the W/S with a red pen.

SHORTHANDING

Auditors usually develop a system of shorthanding the session actions being done, so that session speed is not hampered by Admin.

For example, the repetitive process:

Recall a change Recall a no-change Recall a failed change

is run as a bracket (the pc is given the first command, then the second and then the third and then the first and then the second, etc).

The first command can be abbreviated to 1, the second to 2, and the third to 3.

The W/S therefore would look like:

12.32 2.8a _

failed _ (note that each word of the command is cleared before clearing the command aschange _ a whole)

no-change _

recall _ (F/N)

1.

cleared

2.

cleared

3.

cleared

12.49 2.6

1. Mother went on holiday

2. at school

3. didn’t sell bike

1. moved to new house

2. etc.

After the session when the commands are written out in full on the Auditor’s Report Form, the numbers are again noted so that the C/S can refer to them.

WHATEVER SYSTEM OF ABBREVIATION IS USED BY THE AUDITOR, THE WORKSHEET MUST COMMUNICATE TO THE C/S WHAT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN DURING THE SESSION.

LEGIBILITY

Worksheets should be written legibly. They are never recopied.

The Auditor should always read over his W/sheets before turning in the folder to the Case Supervisor and if any words or letters are missing or cannot be read, they should be put in in block print, in red.

Example:

This can be overdone, to the extent that it is almost sarcasm. At the most it should just run into one or two corrections to a page. If the Auditor is having to correct the page more than that he should learn how to write rapidly and legibly. See HCOB 3 Nov 71, C/S Series 66, “Auditor’s Worksheets”, which also appears as Auditor Admin Series 15 and comes next in this series.

NECESSITY OF WORKSHEETS

It is a CRIME to give any session without making an Auditor’s Report (i.e. actual W/S taken at that time) or to copy the original W/sheets after the session and submit a copy instead of the real reports.

Assist Reports that use only Contact or Touch Assist are written after the session and sent to HGC Admin to be filed in the pc folder. The pc is sent to the Examiner after an assist.

A very fast way for a C/S to do himself in is to fail to insist on GOOD LEGIBLE HANDWRITING.

When a C/S has auditors who can’t write well and rapidly, he gets misunderstood words when he tries to read the worksheets.

One temporary solution is to make the auditor block print the word in red above each hard to read word. Some auditors go to an extreme of block printing the whole WIS.

The more permanent solution is to have Auditors in Cramming practice writing WELL and CLEARLY no matter how slowly and then, maintaining the same clarity, speed it up. The auditor after many such practice sessions winds up writing clearly and fast. This can be increased until an auditor can write clearly as fast as people talk.

The occasional headaches a C/S might get are not from the restim of the case he’s studying but are from the words on W/Ses he can’t make out.

If a C/S does not insist on both block print clarification and auditor writing practice, he will wind up not reading worksheets and may even get foggy about certain cases.

A remedy is to go back to the first folders not understood and get the words clarified and then keep this C/S Series HCO B IN.

L. RON HUBBARD Founder

PS: In the 19th Century secretaries wrote beautiful copperplate longhand faster than a man could talk. So don’t say it can’t be done.

[Auditor Admin Series 17, HCO B 7 November 1972, Issue II, Clearing-Lists, gave a short summary of Correction Lists and the Clearing Lists that corresponded to them and it gave some of the admin for Clearing-Lists. It was cancelled by BTB 10 December 1974, Issue IX, Cancellation of Bulletins 1972,1973, 1974, which says to see the above HCO B 1 December 1974.]

B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N

7 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue IIIRevised & Reissued 28 July 1974 as BTB(Revision in this type sty/e)RemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IIISAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 18R

L&N LISTS

An L&N List (Listing and Nulling List) is a list of Items given by a pc in response to a Listing Question and written down by the Auditor in the exact sequence that they are given to him by the preclear.

An L&N List is always done on a separate sheet.

It’s best to do an L&N List on faint-lined paper.

The pc’s name and date are put on the top of the sheet.

The listing question is written out, usually before the start of session.

When the listing question is checked the read is marked by the question (sF, F, LF, LFBD). If Suppress or Inval is used that is also noted.

As each item is given by the pc the reads are marked—sF, F, LF, LFBD. This is done AS YOU LIST. If the item does not read you mark it with an X.

TA is noted periodically as the pc lists, and especially when the TA rises.

The LFBD F/N item is circled. If indicated to the pc it is marked IND.

When extending a list a line is drawn from where it has been extended with the date.

Example: Item Joe X Shoes sF Socks X _________________ Ext 24.2.72

Sky X Wax X Pigs etc etc.

L&N Lists are never stapled to the W/S but are paper-clipped under the session reports.

CORRECTING L&N LISTS

Old lists are NOT TO BE COPIED.

They are to be corrected in their original form but using a different coloured pen to show what has been done—always date new uses of these lists also using the same colour pen as used for renulling or addition to them.

When a list is pulled forward to correct it, a sheet of paper is left at that date giving the data of the Listing Question and the date it is pulled forward to, so it can be easily located.

The corrected lists are left with the session reports of the session in which they were corrected. A note in red is made in the F/S of this correction.

R3RING AN L&N ITEM

If an L&N Item is later R3Red it should be so noted on the list by adding: “R3R TRIPLED (date)”.

7 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue IVRevised & Reissued 27 July 1974 as BTB(Revision in this type style)RemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1972Issue IVSAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 19R

DIANETIC ASSESSMENT LISTS

A Dianetic Assessment List is a list of Somatics/Items given by a Pc and written down by the Auditor with the reads marked that occur on the Meter.

A Dn Assessment List is always done on a separate sheet.

The Pc’s name and the date are put on the top of the sheet.

The assessment question is noted.

In the Dianetic assessment the read is taken when the Pc first says the Item and this is written down next to the Item. Suppress and Inval buttons can be put in on an unreading Item if needed. This is noted on the list.

If interest is asked of the Pc this is noted by the Item. (Drug Items, intentions and Evil Purposes are automatically run if they read and interest is not asked.)

POSITION IN FOLDER

These Lists are not stapled to the W/sheets but are paper clipped under the W/sheets the same as L&N Lists.

In Exp Dn, PSEA lists (possible 4 separate lists) coming from the same subject can be stapled together and then paper clipped as above.

R3R’D ITEMS

Items on the list that are R3R’d should be circled and marked: “R3R TRIPLED (date).”

Details of the Dn Assessment List and all Items on it run R3R Triple are noted IN FULL on the Folder Summary.

When an Auditor finds an Ethics Situation he should mark it and circle it in red after the session. The pc is not necessarily turned in because a pc cannot be tried on his auditing, it’s illegal, but the Auditor should make mention of it on his Auditor’s C/S.

If it is a serious Ethics Situation that affects others, then it is the Auditor’s responsibility to report it.

The Auditor would make out the report with a carbon copy. He marks it

“SESSION KNOWLEDGE REPORTNON-ACTIONABLE ON (pc’s name)”

and makes out the report. Both copies are left in the folder. The C/S initials the one for Ethics and sends it on. The other stays in the folder.

Sometimes one finds another person’s offences than the pc’s in getting off withholds. These when serious should be reported to Ethics for investigation.

Pcs can be sent to Ethics (i.e. for PTS handling, Court of Ethics for refusing to answer an Auditing Question, etc, etc) but the following rule applies:

THERE IS NO DIRECT ROUTING OF PRECLEARS TO THE ETHICS OFFICER EXCEPT THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION.

When the C/S decides to send the pc to Ethics, he marks a small goldenrod card “ETH”, clips it to the folder and sends the folder to the Examiner.

The Examiner checks over the folder, and calls pc in via Qual I&I for an Examination. If folder not okay, it is returned to the C/S with appropriate Cramming Orders.

If all is correct the Examiner sends the pc direct to Ethics.

If not, pc is routed back to the HGC and the Examiner or Cramming Officer writes up the required Cramming Orders.

When pc has finished his Ethics Cycle he is routed back to the Examiner and is returned to the HGC via Qual I & I.

It is D of P’s responsibility to keep a tension line in with Ethics to make sure the Ethics cycle is completed and the pc is returned to Tech lines.

If the pc is returned to HGC lines for a PTS situation to be handled by auditing, a small yellow card is clipped to the outside of the folder by the C/S until the pc finishes the PTS R/D.

All data about such actions are filed in the folder, including a copy of the Ethics Officer Interview notes.

It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that Conditions Orders and Ethics Orders that affect the preclear’s auditing progress get put in the pc’s folder for the C/S to see.

Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.

Pcs in lowered conditions should be encouraged to work out of the condition and when they reach Emergency the auditing may be resumed.

Details of these Ethics cycles should be entered by the Auditor in the Folder Summary.

(NOTE: Data for this revision was taken from LRH’s writtenreply to a letter from former Tech C/S ASHO.)

TWO METHODS OF FESing

There are two methods of FESing a case. The first is a full detailed FES where one goes back and picks up and notes down all past errors on the case so that a Progress and Advance Program can be done.

Where the C/S is interested in handling the case more rapidly, the procedure is to go back to where the Pc was running well and come forward, looking for the goofs to repair. This would also apply in the case of a Pc who, already repaired, was goofed in further auditing. These are different FES methods—a Progress Program and Repair C/Sing. Neither one includes Admin errors or errors which do not affect the case.

THE FLAW

Folder Error Summaries (FESes) which do not show clearly whether an error has been corrected later in the Pc’s auditing, can lead the C/S into over-repair. Such a flaw lessens the usefulness of an FES.

NEW FORMAT

To handle the above flaw, the layout and contents of the FES have been revised. The following is the format of the FES which should be on legal or equivalent size pink or red paper according to availability.

One can see at a glance that all the noted errors have been corrected. A blank space in the right-hand column would indicate that the error had not yet been fixed.

This column is filled in by the FESer as he goes along, or by the Auditor as correction is done. For example a note: “Chronic high TA” would be marked off by the Auditor “C/S 53RJ to F/N List. TA normal” with the date, when that action had been completed.

Any error noted in the correction of the case IS NOTED AS A NEW ERROR ON THE FES.

THE FES IS KEPT IN PT BY THE AUDITOR AS ERRORS ARE NOTED.

The C/S will use the FES as a help in further programming of the Pc.

It is kept in the inside back cover of the Pc’s folder.

WHAT IS WANTED IN AN FES

An FES should contain those points of error in the auditing of a case which might cause the Pc future difficulty or may require handling. These would include rundowns left unflat or with missing steps; signs of unflat grades; absence of any of the parts of EP, noting what was being run; any chronic problem or difficulty; by-passed EP on any rundown; illness or ethics trouble after an auditing cycle.

The most important points which can bog a case are well covered in the C/S Series, with which an FESer should be familiar. In particular, anyone doing an FES must know very well C/S Series 1, 2, 15, 19, 29, 30, 34, 38, 59. He must be able to recognize and pick out any of the case errors described in the above issues.

Anyone doing FES work must be thoroughly familiar with the GF40XRR. Anything on the case which falls under any of the headings on this list should also be clearly noted in the FES, “Pc was a member of black magic society” could be the thing which is stalling her case.

WHAT ISN’T WANTED

An FES is NOT the same as an FS. The 2 must not be combined or confused.

Opinions have no part in FES.

Do not note admin errors in an FES.

Any error which is not part of the case or its auditing has no place on the FES.

It can be the subject of a chit or separate report.

Examples of this would be: “Auditor did not fill in the Folder Summary” or “Pc not being audited on any program” or “No-one C/Sing the folder”.

Statements which R/Sed, and Ev Purps given off by the Pc are not usually noted in an FES. THE FACT THAT HE DOES R/S, OR DOES GIVE OFF EV PURPS MUST BE NOTED ON THE LEFT-HAND EDGE OF THE PC’S TOPMOST PROGRAM.

R/S statements (which the Pc said that R/Sed when he said it) and Ev Purps are noted on the Pgm in red ink and may be noted on the FS.

Dianetic chains that did not go to EP, flows not run, are noted on a Full Flow Table, not on the FES. The fact that a series of items was run F1 only, or did not EP, is noted on the FES, to be marked off when corrected.

A C/S and his FES unit work closely together and the C/S would usually apprentice these people until they can very rapidly and accurately FES even a thick folder.

8 NOVEMBER 1972RAIssue IIIRevised & Reissued 13 July 1974 as BTBRevised 20 November 1974RemimeoCANCELSBTB OF 8 NOVEMBER 1972RIssue IIISAME TITLE

(Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8have been revised)

Auditor Admin Series 23 RA

INVOICE FORM AND ROUTING FORM

The Form of Board PL 3 Jan 72 (Revised) is stapled to the inside back cover of the pc’s current folder by HGC Admin.

PC BEGINNING INTENSIVE

When a pc signs up and pays for auditing he arrives at the HGC Admin with a Routing Form and a Pink Invoice Copy.

The Invoice is used for pc scheduling, verification of payment before delivery of service, and preparation of the weekly income report.

The Invoice does not go into the pc auditing folder and must not be lost as this could prevent scheduling, delivery of service, or result in auditing without payment.

The Invoice details are filled in on the Form (see attached) at the back of the folder.

The Invoice is placed in the basket of invoices for the weekly income breakdown sheet, and afterwards filed in a weekly envelope with the Tech copy of the weekly income breakdown sheet in Tech Services.

Advance payment invoices received are filed alphabetically in files in Tech Services. When the invoice indicating final payment of service is received, all related invoices for that person and service are pulled out of the alphabetical AP files and stapled to the final payment invoice, and the name and date of expected arrival posted up on a board in Tech Services. The invoices are filed alphabetically in a special file containing only paid up invoices, which are the Tech Div “hot” files for new students and pcs.

The Routing Form is paper-clipped to the front of the folder.

The Auditor enters the Intensive Hours paid (i.e. 121/2 or 25) on his next Auditor’s Report Form and keeps a running total of hours used on the succeeding Auditor’s Report Forms.

PC RUNS OUT OF PAID HOURS

When the pc’s used total approaches close to the Intensive Hours paid, the Auditor puts a note on the front of the folder to HGC Admin to route the pc to buy more hours.

HGC Admin routes the pc through lines to buy more hours.

These particulars are noted on the Invoice Form. (See attached form for example.)

FREE SERVICE = FREE FALL

AN AUDITOR CONTINUING TO AUDIT A PERSON OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF HOURS SIGNED AND PAID FOR, AND WHO DOES NOT SEND THAT PC BACK TO THE REGISTRAR FOR SIGN-UP AND PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL HOURS IN ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE AUDITING PGM, IS GUILTY OF

A. COVERTLY ROBBING HIS FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS OF THEIR PAY, AND

B. IN A CONDITION OF DOUBT TO HIS ORG, AND IS SO ASSIGNED.

SIMILARLY, AN AUDITOR CONTINUING TO AUDIT A STAFF MEMBER OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF HOURS SIGNED AND INVOICED FOR, AND WHO DOES NOT SEND THE PC BACK TO THE REGISTRAR AND CASHIER FOR SIGN-UP AND DEBIT INVOICING OF ADDITIONAL HOURS IN ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE AUDITING PGM, IS GUILTY OF A AND B ABOVE.

Invoices for staff services must carry the mention:

“STAFF DEBITAmount due in full in the eventof staff contract breakage”

and be accompanied by a signed promissory note for the full amount of the service.

An Auditor using the Invoice Form in conjunction with the running total of hours on his Auditor’s Report Form will comfortably know the position with regard to used up hours.

If you look over communication you will find that the magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work.

The Thetan in this universe has begun to consider himself mest and has begun to consider himself mass and the being that considers himself mass of course responds to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton. He is actually incapable of generating very much or as-ising very much.

An individual considers himself mesty or massy and therefore he has to have a second terminal. A second terminal is required to discharge the energy.

Here we have two poles. We have an auditor and a pc and as long as the auditor audits and the pc replies we get an exchange of energy from the pc’s point of view.

Many auditors think they are being a second terminal to the degree that they pick up the somatics and illnesses of the pc. Actually there is no backflow of any kind that hits the auditor but if he is so convinced that he is mest he will turn on somatics in echo of the pc. Actually nothing hits the auditor, it has to be mocked up or envisioned by him.

You have set up in essence a two pole system and that will bring about an as-ising of mass.

It isn’t burning the mass, it is as-ising the mass and that’s why there is nothing hitting the auditor.

Now that is the essence of the situation. The magic involved in auditing is contained in the communication cycle of auditing. You see now you are handling the SMOOTH INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THESE TWO POLES.

When you look over the difficulties of auditing realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of the communication cycle and when you yourself as the auditor do not permit A SMOOTH FLOW BETWEEN YOU AS A TERMINAL AND THE PC AS A TERMINAL, AND THE PC AS A TERMINAL BACK TO YOU, you get a no as-ising of mass. So you don’t get TA action.

Part of the trick of course is what has to be as-ised and how do you go about it, but that we call technique—(what button has to be pressed). We find, oddly enough, if the auditor is actually capable of making the pc willing to talk to him, he wouldn’t have to hit a button to get tone arm action. (He cannot make the pc get tone arm action basically because a communication cycle doesn’t exist )

The person who is insisting continuously upon a new technique is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing which is the communication cycle of auditing.

When the communication cycle does not exist in an auditing session we get this horrible compounding of a felony of trying to get a technique to work but the technique cannot be administered because there is no communication cycle to administer it.

Basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes PRIOR to the technique.

A communication cycle must exist before the technique can exist.

The fundamental entrance to the case is not on a level of the technique but is on a level of the communication cycle.

Communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and withdraw.

When you speak to a pc you are reaching. When you cease to speak you are withdrawing. When he hears you, he’s at that moment a bit withdrawn but then he reaches toward you with the answer.

You’ll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it all over. Then he reaches the reason. Now he will reach the auditor with the reason and he will say that was it.

You have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor and will see it reflect on the meter because that exchange now is giving an as-ising of energy.

IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT COMMUNICATION YOU DO NOT GET METER ACTION.

So THE FUNDAMENTAL OF AUDITING IS THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE. That’s the fundamental of auditing and that is really the great discovery of Dianetics and Scientology.

It’s such a simple discovery but you realize that nobody knew anything about it.

THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITINGFrom the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,“O/W Modernised and Reviewed”

In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.

Processing goes in two stages.

1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.

2. Do something for him.

There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred.

Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc.

He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done something for the pc.

There are two stages.

1. Form a communication line.

2. Do something for the pc.

Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (1) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don’t drive off you never go anyplace.

It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some.

But you see that’s just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.

Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. /t is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it.

If your communication line is very good and very smooth and if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don’t upset this communication line and if you just made a foray of no more importance than saying something like—What are you doing that’s sensible and why is it sensible?—and kept your communication line up all the while and kept your affinity up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square inch than you ever thought could exist.

All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and could never get near anybody was because they couldn’t communicate to anybody.

So that discipline is important.

That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you can’t get to the door you can’t do anything.

The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter reading—all of these things are just to get you in a state where you can do something for somebody.

So when you’re real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you’re pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You’re not even attending yet.

What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions. Be able to read a meter and get the reactions.

All of those things have to be awfully good because it’s very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect, then we can start to process somebody. THEN we can start to process somebody.

I’m giving you an entrance point here of, if all your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication, well then there is something you do with these things. It takes a process now.

We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach people what they could do for somebody. But they could never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore you had failures in processing.

The most elementary procedure would be—’’What do you think is sensible?”—or anything of that sort. The pc says, “Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That’s sensible. ‘‘ The auditor says, “Alright. Now why is that sensible?” The pc says, “Well ... ah .... Hey! . . . That’s not sensible. That’s nuts!”’ You actually wouldn’t have to do anything more than that He’s cognited. You’ve flattened it. It’s so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic.

Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is remain in communication with the person while you are doing this, and realize that these huge aberrations he’s got are poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these things crash.

Now if you’re not in communication with this person he doesn’t cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status.

Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump happily to something else because sane people run on that and crazy people run on something else, and they never have to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor.

The auditor couldn’t possibly be in communication with him.

So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn’t the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.

You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4.

You sit down and you start the session and you start handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION—THE VERY THINGS YOU ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in communication with the person. Now you’ve got to do something for the person.

Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something for the person, you lose your communication line because the R-Factor of why you’re in communication with the pc breaks down. He doesn’t think you’re so good, and you go out of communication with him. That having happened, the person will be in a sort of status defensive and wonder why he is being processed.

On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get more TA action out of the fact that “all horses sleep in beds”—you don’t get there as you’ve already flattened the process.

You can over-audit and you can under-audit.

If you don’t notice that one answer come your way, that indicates you have done something for the pc and if you keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will disappear, your pc will get resentful and you’ll lose your communication line.

He’s already had the cognition you see. You are now restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out destimulation factor—it has occurred right before your eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention of the subject and you’ve had it.

There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without turning them off either. You’ve got to do something for the pc, not to him.

Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing (B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B) then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a mess and you wonder what happened.

Well the pc never did what you said so you didn’t do anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on.

That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so therefore the auditor wasn‘t in communication with the pc.

So again the communication factor was out and once more we weren’t doing anything for the pc.

It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his communication line. He has got to stay in communication with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can’t be distracting the pc’s attention onto the TA, e.g. “I’m not getting any TA action now.” That’s not staying in communication with the pc—has nothing to do with it. You’re distracting the pc from his own zones and areas.

Don’t put the pc’s attention out of session. Keep him going and keep that communication line in. And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line.

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971Issue IIIReissued 1 December 1974RemimeoAuditors CANCELSSupervisors BTB OF 23 MAY 1971Students Issue IIITech & Qual SAME TITLE

Basic Auditing Series 3

THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES

From the LRH Tape 15 Oct 63,“Essentials of Auditing”

When you are sitting in an auditing session what are the 3 important communication lines and what is their order of importance?

1. The first is the Pc’s line to his bank. The Itsa Maker line.

2. The second is the Pc’s line to the Auditor. The Itsa line.

3. The third is the Auditor’s line to the Pc. The What’s-it line.

Now the definition, “Willing to talk to the Auditor”, is very easy to interpret as “Talking to the Auditor”. So the Auditor cuts the line the Pc has to the bank in order to get the Pc to talk, because “It’s the Itsa line that blows the charge,” he says.

So the Auditor cuts the Pc’s communication line with his bank in order to bring about an Itsa line—and then he wonders why he gets no TA action and why the Pc ARC Breaks.

This cut communication line is not perceivable to the naked eye. It’s hidden because it’s from the Pc—a Thetan unseen by the Auditor—to the Pc’s bank—unseen by the Auditor.

The Auditor is simply there to use the What’s-it line in order to get the Pc to confront his bank. The charge blows off it to the degree that it’s confronted and this is represented by the Itsa line.

The Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, that gives it its flow.

The sequence of use of these lines in an auditing cycle is 3, 1, and then 2.

Where the Auditor neglects this hidden line from the Pc to the Pc’s bank, where he doesn’t understand that hidden line and can’t integrate it or do anything with it he is going to fail.

The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle.

There are basically two communication cycles between the Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle.

They are cause, distance, effect with the Auditor at cause and the Pc at effect, and cause, distance, effect with the Pc at cause and the Auditor at effect.

Cause ---------------------- Distance ----------------------> Effect

Auditor Pc

Effect <-------------------- Distance ------------------------ Cause

These are completely distinct one from the other. The only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle, is the fact that the Auditor, on his communication cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the Pc which is then discharged by the Pc’s communication cycle.

What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the restimulation.

If the Pc does not answer the question he doesn’t get rid of the restimulation. That is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle and that is the entirety of the game. (Some auditing breaks down because the Auditor is unwilling to restimulate the Pc.)

There is a little extra communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, “Thank you” and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle.

Now there are some little inner cycles that can throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. There is another little shadow cycle: it is the observation of “Has the Pc received the auditing command?” This is such a tiny “cause” that nearly all Auditors who are having any trouble finding out what’s going on with the Pc are missing this one. “Does he receive it?” Actually there is another cause in here and you’re missing that one when you’re not perceiving the Pc.

You can tell by looking at the Pc that he didn’t hear or understand what you’d said or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving. Whatever that message is in response, it rides on this line.

An Auditor who isn’t watching a Pc at all never notices a Pc who isn’t receiving or understanding the auditing command. Then all of a sudden somewhere along the line there is an ARC Break and then we do assessments and we patch up the session and all kinds of things go wrong.

Well, they actually needn’t ever have gone wrong in the first place if this line had been in. What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well, what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance, effect line.

Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect line of—”Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?”

This is the Pc causing and it rides up the line across distance, is received at the Auditor and the Auditor perceives that the Pc is doing something else.

It is an important one and you find that Auditors goof that one very often; the Pc’s attention is still on a prior action.

Now here’s another one—”Has the Pc received the acknowledgement?” Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you’ve never seen that he didn’t receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it is—’’Has the Pc answered everything?’’

The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at “cause” hasn’t moved on down the line to effect and you haven’t perceived all of the “effect” and you go into the acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself.

That’s chopping the Pc’s communication. You didn’t let the communication cycle flow to its complete end. The acknowledgement takes place and of course it can’t go through as it’s an inflowing line and it jams right there on the Pc’s incomplete outflowing answer line.

So if you want to break it all down, there are six communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle. Six, not more than six unless you start running into trouble. If you violate one of these six communication lines you of course are going to get into trouble which causes a mish-mash of one kind or another.

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle and that is at the point of the Pc. It’s a little additional one and it’s between the Pc and himself. This is him talking to him. You’re listening to the inside of his skull when you’re examining it. /t actually can be multiple as it depends upon the complications of the mind.

This happens to be the least important of all the actions except when it isn’t being done. And of course it’s the hardest to detect when it isn’t being done. Pc says: “Yes. ‘‘ Now what has the Pc said yes to? And sometimes you are insufficiently curious. And that in essence is this internal perception of line. It includes this cause, distance, effect backflash here—’’Is the Pc answering the command I gave him?’’

So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle.

A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? You’d have to answer that with how many principal ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few more. If a Pc indicates that he didn’t get the command (cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you’ve got 9—because there was a flub. So anything unusual that happens in a session adds to the number of communication cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part of the auditing cycle.

Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same cycle over and over again.

Now there is a completely different cycle inside the same pattern. The Pc is going to originate and it’s got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. But this is brand new. The Pc says something that is not germane to what the Auditor is saying or doing and you actually have to be alert for this happening at any time and the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen at any time and just go into the drill that handles it. Don’t get it confused with the drill that you have as an auditing cycle. Consider it its own drill. You shift gears into this drill when the pc does something unexpected.

And, by the way, this handles such a thing as the Pc originates by throwing down the cans. That’s still an origin. It has nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Maybe the auditing cycle went to pieces and this origination cycle came in. Well, the auditing cycle can’t complete because this origin cycle is now here. That doesn’t mean that this origin has precedence or dominance but it can start and take place and have to be finished off before the auditing cycle can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle and it is cause, distance, effect. The Pc causes something. The Auditor now has to originate as the Auditor has to understand what the Pc is talking about—and then acknowledge. And to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have the cause, distance, effect of the Auditor trying to clarify this thing; and every time he asks a question, he’s got a new communication cycle.

You can’t put a machine action at that point because the thing has to be understood. And this must be done in such a way that the Pc isn’t merely repeating his same origination or the Pc will go frantic. He’ll go frantic because he can’t get off that line—he’s stuck in time and it really upsets him. So the Auditor has to be able to understand what the devil the Pc is talking about. And there’s really no substitute for simply trying to understand it.

There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect) that comes before the origination takes place so you don’t run into a jam and you don’t give the auditing command. The effect at the Auditor’s point is to shut up and let him. There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect) where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is the origination, the Auditor’s acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement.

That’s your origination cycle.

An Auditor should draw all these communication cycles out on a scrap of paper. Just take a look at all these things; mock up a session and all of a sudden it will become very straight how these things are and you won’t have a couple of them jammed up. What’s mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is that you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such a degree that you don’t differentiate that they exist. That’s why you sometimes chop a Pc who is trying to answer the question.

You know whether the Pc has answered the question or not. How did you know? Even if it’s telepathy it’s cause, distance, effect. It doesn’t matter how that communication took place, you know whether he’s answered the command by a communication cycle. I don’t care how you sense this.

If you are nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing and if that’s giving you trouble (and if you get into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it) then it should be broken down and analyzed at a time when you’re auditing something nice and simple.

I’ve given you a general pattern for an auditing cycle; maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra communication cycles in the thing. But they are all there and if you made someone go through each one painstakingly, you would find out where his auditing cycle is jammed up. It isn’t necessarily jammed up on his ability to say “Thank you”. It may very well be jammed up in another quarter.

The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.

We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle OBNOSIS (observation of the obvious).

Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing.

Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive and so good that you’re never worried about what you do now.

The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training. If you know your communication cycle is good you haven’t any longer got to be upset about whether you’re doing it right or not. You know yours is good, so you don’t worry about it any more.

In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc’s. Your business is the communication cycle and responses of the pc.

This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and when absent you have an auditor who couldn’t crack an egg if he stepped on it.

This is the difference, it’s whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lapses.

It’s so simple.

It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it, and when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it and is through answering it. Then give him the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do. You can ask the same question or you can ask another question.

Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the pc can hear it and knows what he’s being asked.

When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question and not some other question.

You have to develop a sensitivity—when did the pc finish answering what you’ve asked. You can tell when the pc has finished. It’s a piece of knowingness. He looks like he’s finished and he feels like he’s finished. It’s part sense; it’s part his vocal intonation; but it’s an instinct that you develop. You know he’s finished.

Then knowing he’s finished answering you tell him he’s finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It’s like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like—”You have now found and located the by-passed charge in answer to the question and you have said it.” That’s the magic of acknowledgement.

If you don’t have that sensitivity for when the pc is finished answering—he answers, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action.

The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard that you finish the session right there.

It’s all very well to do this sort of thing in training and it’s forgivable, but NOT in an auditing session.

Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired that you don’t have to worry about it after training.

If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

“I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last).”

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC Break.

INVALIDATION

To say “You did not speak loud enough_____” or any other use of “you” is an invalidation.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.

EVALUATION

Far more serious than Invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you’re a circuit.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

Children also do this to annoy.

But that isn’t the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

Further, don’t gesture to find out. To say, pointing, “You mean this item, then,” is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

Don’t tell the pc what the pc said and don’t gesture to find what the pc meant.

Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That’s the correct action.

DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS

Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don’t gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor.

ROCK SLAMMER

The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can’t audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.

But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast.

SUMMARY

A very high percentage of ARC Breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Here’s a new discovery. Imagine my making one on the Comm Formula after all these years.

Do people ever explain to you long after you have understood?

Do people get cross with you when they are trying to tell you something?

If so, you are suffering from Premature Acknowledgement.

Like body odor and bad breath, it is not conducive to social happiness. But you don’t use Lifebuoy soap or Listerine to cure it, you use a proper comm formula.

When you “coax” a person to talk after he has begun with a nod or a low “yes” you ack, make him forget, then make him believe you haven’t got it and then make him tell you at GREAT length. He feels bad and doesn’t cognite and may ARC Break.

Try it out. Have somebody tell you about something and then encourage before he has completely told you all.

THAT’S why pcs Itsa on and on and on and on with no gain. The auditor prematurely acknowledged. THAT’S why pcs get cross “for no reason”. The auditor has prematurely and unwittingly acknowledged. THAT’S why one feels dull when talking to certain people. They prematurely acknowledge. That’s why one thinks another is stupid—that person prematurely acknowledges.

The quickest way to become a social pariah (dog) is to prematurely acknowledge. One can do it in many ways.

The quickest way to start the longest conversation is to prematurely acknowledge for the person believes he has not been understood and so begins to explain at greater and greater length.

So this was the hidden ARC Break maker, the cognition wrecker, the stupidifier, the Itsa prolonger in sessions.

And why some people believe others are stupid or don’t understand.

Any habit of agreeable noises and nods can be mistaken for acknowledgement, ends cycle on the speaker, causes him to forget, feel dull, believe the listener is stupid, get cross, get exhausted explaining and ARC Break. The missed withhold is inadvertent. One didn’t get a chance to say what one was going to say because one was stopped by premature acknowledgement. Result, missed w/h in the speaker, with all its consequences.

This can be counted on to make you feel frightened of being “agreeable with noises or gestures” for a bit and then you’ll get it straight.

What a piece of tech to remain incompletely explained. Fair scares one it does. And in the Comm Formula too!

Now an auditor who doesn’t know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.

A sure sign that an auditor doesn’t know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc “Itsa” on and on and on.

In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.

We aren’t psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know.

The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned.

It isn’t “our idea” of how things are, or “our opinion of” ....

Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren’t similar because Euclid said so. They’re similar because they are. If you don’t believe it, look at them.

There isn’t a single datum in Scientology that can’t be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.

Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of “the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah” he’s going to have trouble. His pcs are going to “Itsa” their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn’t know Scientology but thinks it’s all imprecise opinion.

The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn’t know that, one’s pcs “Itsa” by the hour for one doesn’t know what he is handling that he is calling “a pc”.

By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON’T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate.

So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON.

If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that “auditor”:

1. Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

3. Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown.

4. A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the “auditor” could DO THEM IN CLAY.

5. A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology.

6. TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.

7. Trs 5 to 9.

8. Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. A hard long study of the Meter.

10. The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. The Processes of Level 0.

12. Some wins.

And I’d have an auditor. I’d have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every time.

And it’s lack of the above that causes an “auditor” to say “I let the pc Itsa” with the pc talking on and on and on.

Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.

Example: Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is.Example: Asking a pc if that is the answer.Example: Telling pc “it didn’t react” on the meter.Example: Querying the answer.

This is the WORST kind of auditing.

Processes run best MUZZLED. By muzzled is meant using ONLY TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text. A pc’s results will go to HELL on an additive comm cycle.

There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the Auditing Comm Cycle. EVERY ONE of them is a GOOF. The ONLY time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn’t hear it.

Since 1950, I’ve known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard model session and the TR 0 to 4 Auditing Comm Cycle ONLY.

It is a serious matter to get a pc to “clarify his answer”. It is in fact an Ethics matter and if done habitually is a Suppressive Act, for it will wipe out all gains.

There are mannerism additives also.

Example: Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won’t look at you are ARC Broken. You don’t then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.)

Example: A lifted eyebrow at an answer.Example: A questioning sort of ack.

The Whole Message is

GOOD AUDITING OCCURS WHEN THE COMM CYCLE ALONE IS USED AND IS MUZZLED.

Additives on the Auditing Comm Cycle are ANY ACTION, STATEMENT, QUESTION OR EXPRESSION GIVEN IN ADDITION TO TRs 0-4.

An auditor’s tendency is to look for wrongnesses. He is always trying to find something wrong with the pc. That’s the nature of Scientology; we assume that there is something wrong with somebody otherwise he wouldn’t be here and be dead in his head, and he would be capable of doing a great deal more than he is doing at the particular moment.

An individual is basically and routinely good, capable of many actions and considerable power.

In the state of a Free Thetan or Native State he is a far more powerful individual than when he’s been complicated up.

It’s the idea of the additive data to the Thetan. Try to give somebody something he doesn’t want and you are going to overthrow his power of choice. His power of choice is the only thing that he had to begin with, which gave him power, capability and anything else and that power of choice has been consistently and continuously overthrown by giving him things he didn’t want and taking away from him things he didn’t want to get rid of back and forth. You get the individual pretty overwhelmed and he goes down in power.

What happened to him actually is he solved something that didn’t need solving. There was something he couldn’t confront so he solved it and he fixed the solution.

Anytime you fix these solutions, for ever and ever you put the individual down grade. An individual becomes aberrated by additives. His experiences in this universe are usually calculated to degrade and depower him. Now all you have to do is pick up all of these criss-crosses and you return him to power.

Man is an added-to being and everything that has been added to him has decreased his ability to cope. When you add something to the Being he gets worse.

We are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual.

Even the Freudian Analyst realized that some additive had been added that should be deleted. So the idea of deleting something to bring about a recovery is not new with us.

Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual we seldom look at rightnesses and that’s what’s wrong with most auditors. They are so anxious to find the wrongness—and quite properly—and they never really look at the rightness. If they don’t look at the rightnesses that are present, then they aren’t appreciating the degrees of truth that are present that can be promoted into more truth.

In other words they are starting at a level of no truth present all the time so of course they never make any forward progress.

You must realize that there must be truth present and that this truth must be recognized and that this is hand-in-glove a part of auditing—the recognition of the fact that truth is present.

If you only look for wrongnesses and only recognize wrongnesses then you will never be able to pull anything up a gradient because you won’t think you have any rightnesses to work with. It just all looks wrong to you.

You have to be able to look at the wrongnesses in order to right them but we also have to be able to look at the rightnesses in order to increase them.

We are only trying to find wrongnesses in order to increase rightnesses, and that’s very important. If you have no rightnesses present in a session you will never be able to make any progress of any kind. Progress is built on a gradient scale of rightnesses by which you delete wrongnesses and they drop and fall away.

Therefore, Processing is an action by which wrongnesses can be deleted from the case to the degree that rightnesses are present in the session. You cannot take a case that doesn’t have any rightness present and delete a wrongness. So you have to realize that there are rightnesses present and then you increase those rightnesses That makes it possible for you to pick up the wrongnesses and that’s what auditing consists of.

Auditing is a contest of maintaining rightnesses so that we can delete wrongnesses. If you keep on deleting wrongnesses, all the while maintaining and increasing the rightnesses you eventually wind up with a very right being. You are trying to get a right being, therefore if you don’t continually encourage right beingness you never wind up with a right being.

You must learn to observe an auditing session. You want your pc to wind up in a right state—in a more native, more capable, less overwhelmed, higher power of choice sort of state. You want him to wind up with more rightnesses.

Therefore, if you audit so that you do not encourage and increase rightnesses then you won’t wind up with a right pc.

The degree of rightness you have present must exceed the wrongness you are going to pick up. It’s a proportional action. If you’ve got as much wrongness in a session as you’ve got rightness you’re not riding on any cushion. It makes a very difficult job of auditing. If you want to pick up this little wrongness, you have to have rightnesses present which are big enough to engulf it. That makes easy auditing.

If the rightnesses in the session are very minor and the problem is a tiny one, there isn’t enough rightness in the session to handle the problem and the pc cannot erase it.

THE PC’S ABILITY TO AS-IS OR ERASE IN A SESSION IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF GOOD INDICATORS PRESENT IN THE SESSION.

And his inability to cope in a session rises proportionally to the number of bad indicators present in a session.

Any process has its own series of bad indicators. And the bad indicator moves in when the good indicator moves out So you have to have a primary knowledge of good indicators.

Don’t look for bad indicators on and on and on; you’ll drive the pc around the bend and suppress the good indicators What you want to do is know your good indicators for the level you are running so well that when one of them disappears out of the session, your ears go up and you instantly look for the bad indicator. Don’t look for the bad indicator until you see the vanishment of the good indicator. Otherwise you’re continually prowling around looking for wrongnesses in a session and you keep a pc very upset and you get no auditing done of any kind whatsoever.

Remember this next time you see a pc start to bog and drag and flounder one way or the other. You’ve got to get the pc’s good indicators back in before you can get the pc to handle what you want him to handle.

What influences the attitude of the pc is an ARC Break (that of course is influenced earlier by the auditor’s behavior), or the pc has an overt on the auditor or the pc has a missed withhold.

An auditor who never gets in and finds out what is wrong in the session—the reasonable auditor—messes up pcs like mad.

If all the good indicators are present the auditor knows he is doing a good job of auditing.

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971Issue IXRemimeoAuditorsSupervisorsStudents Basic Auditing Series 11Tech and Qual StaffChecksheets of all coursesteaching meteringMETERING

One does NOT tell the pc anything about the meter or its reads ever, except to indicate an F/N.

Steering a pc with “That—That—That” on something reading is allowable. But that isn’t putting attention on the meter but on his bank.

Definition of “In Session” is “Pc interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”.

Saying “That reads”, “That didn’t read”, “That blew down” is illegal. It is no substitute for TR 2. It violates the In Session definition by putting pc’s attention on the meter and can make him very unwilling to talk to the auditor!

22 APRIL 1971R(Reissued 12 December 1971)Remimeo Reissued 11 July 1974 as BTBQual Sec Hat Revised 20 November 1974Cramming Off Hat Supervisor Course (Revision in this type style)ChecksheetsSupervisor Hats CANCELSBTB OF 22 APRIL 1971SAME TITLE

Cramming Series 1R

CRAMMING

PURPOSE: TO TEACH THE STUDENT WHAT HE HAS MISSED.

WHAT HE IS, WHAT HE DOES

The Cramming Officer should be the most skilled Supervisor in the place. He should handle only causes— as basic as he can get. Then he sets the fellow back on the road.

Cramming requires individual, skilled attention by someone who is willing to 2-Way Comm and knows the subject under discussion well enough to be able to find where specific points are covered.

Cramming’s purpose is to teach the student what he’s missed.

To do that, it must handle both why he missed it and what was missed.

Stable Data:

1. Things are CAUSED, they do not “just happen”.

2. The cause lies earlier than the effect.

3. It is not “human to err” nor is it reasonable to forget things nor are there people who are “naturally slow”.

4. Though stupidity comes in general from charge on the case, thoroughly remarkable changes can be effected in rate and thoroughness of data assimilation, independent of general auditing, by use of study technology.

5. Basic, when blown, discharges the rest of the chain; Basic is earlier.

In practice, the “why” of a suddenly slowed rate of study or of an overt product can be found and gotten rid of by looking just before the change and fixing up what you find. (Sometimes one has to carry the matter earlier, especially in the case of improving a study rate that is generally slow.)

RESULTS

Another Stable Datum is: If it didn’t resolve the situation, it wasn’t the right cause of it. You don’t know what was bogging the guy until you find it—it’s easy to evaluate what you think must be wrong with the guy or sell your wins or cogs . . . but it’s very hard on the guy you’re cramming.

The route to 100% results on the students is persistence in finding the actual cause. Hammering the same point over and over just doesn’t find the cause of a repeating error (and there shouldn’t even be the first error, if he did the course properly). When he’s found (not you’ve found, when he’s found) what’s out, you’ll have as many VGIs as you could ask for and the error will not repeat.

LOG BOOK

Keep a log book giving the date and name of student, reason sent to Cramming. This gives a good idea of how the student is doing.

PROGRAM

The Cramming Officer gets into 2-Way Comm with the student to estimate what needs to be done, and lines up a short program of steps to be taken in Cramming. This is done in duplicate. The original is handed to the student. The Cramming Officer retains the duplicate for his record and so he can trace the student’s progress, and bring it to a rapid completion. The students should be kept busy.

GRAPH TREND

Go over the student’s daily graph of study stats and from the point of downward trend, check the checksheet for what was being studied at that time, or just before.

CRAMMING TECH

The standard of just taking the Bulletin he’s hung up on and asking for a missed word in the previous Bulletin (or previous Section of the Bulletin) works great and often simply this would handle the situation.

Whatever it is, it is something, and there are a finite number of things it can be.

Frequently the student will offer a word and then half withdraw it—yet usually it’s the very first one he offers when asked. So when you ask for a word, take what’s offered . . . all too often the word the guy hung up on is one he almost believes, or fully believes, he knows.

BASIC TOOL

Your most basic tool is the full “cycle of the misunderstood”. A very large part of the time you have to use the whole thing.

Say you’re cramming an Auditor who’s just goofed. C/S has sent him to Cramming on R3R steps, as in the middle of session he started dropping commands.

Your first task is to find what exactly occurred. There can be bad admin or other varieties of false reports.

Then why that occurred, looking earlier. In many cases something else preceded gross obvious goofs. He did the course, he’s got no right ever to goof that data.

Aha! He wasn’t sure if he should have been running that item on the Pc ... seemed like a narrative.

Now with the initial goof to hand you find the principle that wasn’t understood. On check, yep, he doesn’t understand what it’s OK to run or not to run in Dianetics.

Aha, Aha! And what word or term? Yes, he doesn’t know what “narrative” means.

Clay Demo of “narrative” (full demo—not “can somebody guess”) after looking it up . . . a checkout on a couple of HCO Bs . . . and the guy’s in business. Then you can assess how much restudy of what is needed and groove him in to not omit commands even when flustered. Now he can learn, and will apply.

OTHER TOOLS

All standard study tech is at your disposal; HCOB Feb 21, 66, “Definition Processes”, HC Stress Analysis, etc., will get many a student out of the soup by themselves.

Frequently a student proves to be pushed too far along the gradient and simply needs to be put back, to the proper slot. Often all mass and doingness get left aside and only theory gets done—the guy never got an E-Meter or looked at a Pc. Sometimes the guy’s programmed onto the wrong course entirely—completely without a purpose on the one he’s on.

WHEN SIMPLY ASKING FOR A MISSED WORDDRAWS A BLANK

Sometimes he can’t spot one offhand.

You can simply ask for the prior area the fellow feels “weak in” or “disagrees with” or “feels unsure of” and from that easily get the missed term. Clay of terms which the guy missed and hung up on helps a lot—whether in the present or a previous similar subject.

This approach works very well when cramming in relation to a subject involving only activity, where there was no particular study of printed matter associated with it.

WHEN THERE APPEARS TO BE NO EARLIER

Counter-Policy and Counter-Tech come into this. Frequently the guy “knows” the data but also “knows” something else that is either directly misunderstood or the result of a misunderstood. There’s no obvious earlier error, he just all the time erroneously omits the R3R step despite having been checked out . . . obviously if it’s simply a matter of “Gee! I never saw that before,” your job is easy and the Why is simply didn’t do the material in the first place.

But say the Exec did the course, but still won’t ever train his staff. He’s full of apparent comprehension, but doesn’t apply.

Well there’s the overt—won’t train—yet he feels he’s doing right or he wouldn’t be doing it. Fine, your approach is, “Why was what you did the right thing to do in those circumstances?” (“What made it OK to commit the overt?”) “One’s got to cope and get the product out.” “Good, what’s the policy covering that that you’re using—get me a copy, please.”

You take the policy he’s using as the reason (whether an actual Policy, Bulletin, or someone’s order, or even an “everybody knows” from Psychology) and find the principle not understood and the word missed that led to the misunderstanding and you’re back in business. Maybe, above, it turns out the guy didn’t know he should have set someone to organize behind him and finally didn’t know what “product” meant at all.

Repaired, the guy will now at last both cope and train.

SLOW STUDENTS

Often subjects studied earlier (and usually blown from) have to be addressed. E.g. One student couldn’t seem to get or find his misunderstood on the Ethics Section of OEC. This was traced back to a term he’d never understood while studying law, and magically he suddenly understood the Ethics Policies he was studying.

Sometimes the student has gone past 20-30 misunderstoods, and each one has to be defined. E.g. One student had never completed his HSDC because he “couldn’t read DMSMH”. He’d gone 1/3 way through and utterly bogged. After defining word after word he hadn’t understood, with the student getting brighter and brighter, he suddenly stated—”Hey, it’s easy to read now.”

CRAMMING AUDITORS

The first thing to do is to go over the C/S, the session, the C/S comments and Cramming actions to be done. Trace back misunderstoods to basic and from that indicate which HCO B(s) to restudy on.

Often the Auditor will originate another area of uncertainty. Take these up too and handle each one.

OTHER STANDARD TOOLS

Student Rescue Intensives sometimes are a life-saver.

The Learning Drill, even Op Pro by Dup (with C/S OK), TRs 0-9 and all sorts of drills as issued (e.g. 101-104) assist. TR errors are as fundamental errors as you can get on an Auditor—except perhaps, can he sit in the chair?

THE COURSES

A large part of the Cramming Officer’s responsibility lies in correcting the courses that trained the guy being crammed. If it had been run all that standardly you’d not have expected the fellow to wind up in Cramming.

Sometimes the student himself isn’t at fault at all—common course outnesses which the Cramming Officer may have to see corrected before students can get anywhere are:

1. No Supervisor.

2. No materials.

3. No checksheet.

4. Improper checksheet.

5. No checkouts available.

6. All theory, or perhaps Theory with demos or clay substituted for an actual Practical section.

7. No Supervisor 2-Way Comm in use. (Nothing mystic here just no one talks to anyone. )

8. Evaluated tech, e.g. by Supervisor or fellow student.

9. Uneducated Supervisors, in general—not using or applying the Study Tech themselves.

10. Bad equipment, especially tape recorders.

11. Student has never done the Student Hat, not knowing Study Tech at all himself. Doesn’t know how to study and so never learns anything!

The Cramming Officer, in the face of Course and Supervisor outnesses, as above, must firstly unbug the student and get him winning again, then call in the Supervisor or Supervisors involved and get them corrected. In the case of a Course Admin who can’t maintain the tape recorders, he is pulled in and fully corrected in this area.

SUPERVISION AND C/S

Very often the student is having difficulty because of poor supervision. He would be learning well and progressing if the Supervisor were better trained or crammed.

The same situation could exist with the C/S—he may need training and cramming.

This should not be overlooked by a Cramming Officer who sees too many students or Auditors being sent for the same difficulties.

It is the Cramming Officer’s responsibility to keep Supervisors and C/Ses trained as well.

THE STUDENT HAT

The Cramming Officer may find that the student has never learned how to be a student. He was never hatted— never got an R-Factor on what was expected of him as a student. It is simple to get him hatted with the Student Hat.

This does not apply only to students in Tech Training and Technical Personnel but to Admin Students as well. Staff Personnel on Admin Courses, Staff Status, OEC, Hats, are also students and require Hatting and Cramming. They should not be neglected by the Cramming Officer.

COACHING TO A NO WIN

Occasionally you will find a coach who can’t give himself or another a win. He coaches toward a loss. This could go so far as to not let himself progress just to keep his fellow student back. Or he may never let his fellow student pass—or pass him when he doesn’t deserve it.

This could require auditing to resolve. But a good Cramming Officer can handle this by finding the Why and getting it handled. And find the area he has losses on and get the misunderstoods off.

INVALIDATION AND CORRECTING THE WRONG WHY

One barrier to study is the conviction that a right datum is wrong or not to be applied. The only resolution to this is finding and pulling off whatever or however it got invalidated and then rapid restudy of the area.

A student ordered to “restudy his Finance Pack because ‘he doesn’t know his finance policy’ “ will profit from the study best after the Why is located specifically and straightened up. Once he’s found, say, his misunderstood in “how to do payroll” he can then study the rest of the pack in staff study with profit and certainty. A restudy without finding what’s out tends to leave him in doubt about all his comprehension of the materials and he ends up more uncertain of the materials than before, unless he happens to spot the exact error in the course of the general review.

THERE IS A CAUSE

Persistence is probably the keynote. Since, (a) HE CAN DO IT, and (b) sometimes the first thing you find and well handle does not resolve the situation, then (c) THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE AWRY TOO.

You follow each cycle to a VGI/Cog. A VGI/Cog doesn’t necessarily resolve the whole show, but it ends an action. Sometimes you get a good change as “My God, you know I’ve never really known what an F/N was” or “You know, I’ve always avoided Finance Policy and don’t really understand it at all.” That does end that action. But then you still have to find the misunderstoods in the Policy, and drill, checkout, etc.

BASICS

The most common misunderstoods of Tech Students and Students on Admin Courses alike lie in the Basics— METERING, TRs, UNDERSTANDING OF THE AUDITOR’S CODE, THE BASIC THEORY OF THE HUMAN MIND, STRICT HONESTY AND HONOR AS AN AUDITOR.

These are the things the student should learn early and what a good Cramming Officer always looks for, because if the student did not learn them early in his training—or if he had had an earlier than Scientology Misunderstood—his later training will hang up somewhere.

The Cramming Officer should check for things like:

What is the Mind?

What is Charge?

What is the Time Track?

What happens when something keys in?

What happens when something keys out—or erases?

What is it that makes the meter read?

What is mass?

Questions like this should be asked and good Demos done. Then the Cramming Officer can go earlier and earlier. He may find the misunderstood in earlier subjects algebra, science, philosophy, simple multiplication, it could be anywhere; and the Cramming Officer tracks it down.

TRs, METERING, AUDITOR’S CODE, THE AUDITOR’S INTEGRITY ARE DRILLED SO THAT THEY APPLY TO THE SESSIONS THE AUDITOR RUNS. The student or Auditor will cognite that these are for use and not just for drilling.

The Cramming Officer is there to unbug the Auditor and student—wherever the bug or flaw may be. It must be tracked down to basic and cleared up.

Every Org must have a good Cramming Officer. Without a Cramming Officer, auditing and training are not kept at the high quality our Tech requires.

The general procedure in use in handling Auditors sent to Cramming is as follows:

A. Interview the Auditor with the folder and Cramming Order.

B. Go over the folder locating all errors in sequence, earliest to latest.

C. Find the Why for the goof on a meter.

D. Ensure the Cramming Order handles the Why, is short and written in sequence of gradient handling, including basics.

E. See that the misunderstoods are cleaned up back to the BASICS (e.g. errors handling out Ruds traced back through Basic Auditing Series to the Auditor’s Code). Always use WC 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 in addition to starrates and clay.

F. Have the Auditor drill the procedure flubbed until flawless.

G. Have the Auditor do TRs 0-4 (6-9 if necessary), debugging individual TRs on a gradient of perfection.

H. If a chronic error, metering error or low hours, check over his meter position, eyes and his handling of the meter, and OT TR 0 and TR 0 particularly.

I. Now, with the error corrected and basics in, interview the Auditor and verify that the Why is handled and send to the Pc Examiner as a VGIs F/Ning student.

J. If no F/N, check him over on the meter for by-passed why or misunderstoods, isolate the area and get it corrected and Word Cleared M2 & 9 and starrated and drilled.

K. Write up the “Why” and key actions of the handling for the C/S, attach the F/N Exam form and route to the C/S logged as complete.

In many instances, if a person is asked what was done, he will not report exactly what was done, so a Cramming Off should get a person to SHOW him what he did.

A Cramming Off has to hand a Cramming Order. His first action is to get the person to demonstrate by going through the motions. In many cases, he won’t have to go any further because the demonstration will immediately show what was wrong and requiring correction.

For example, an Interne is having trouble with assessment, but a simple demonstration shows that he does not know how to set up for a session. He has his Meter way over to the left, the worksheets in the center and the assessment sheet way over to his right, and thus cannot see the list, the Meter and the Pc all in one field of vision. Such a demo can take one minute and save a Cramming Off 20 minutes of digging.

In Admin Cramming, Show Me can take the Cramming Off into the Staff Member’s area.

TELL ME

When Show Me is not possible, have the person tell what happened. “Exactly what did you do?” is a stable datum. Get the exact sequence of events not a lot of ramble. If very confused have the person use a Demo Kit. Don’t get caught up in reasons or explanations.

OBNOSIS

The Cramming Officer must be able to pick out the outnesses in what is being said or shown. One doesn’t have to be an expert to recognize and follow down something that doesn’t make sense.

WHAT HAPPENED JUST BEFORE THAT?

In some cases, particularly in the Tech Cramming area, the Cramming Off will have to find out what happened just before the goof.

When checking for what happened just before a goof, the Cramming Off will find A. something he didn’t understand, and/or B. something he couldn’t control.

A new Interne flubs the commands of R3R. Now, if the Cramming Off doesn’t ask what happened just before that, he may miss out on his Why. He will probably find out that the Interne realized he was running out of paper, or some such common incidence, which caused him to become flustered, TRs to go out, and he flubbed the commands. In this case, through his own lack of planning and set-up actions, the Interne lost control of the session. So the Cramming Off will cram the Interne on session set-up actions and strengthen his TR 0 through the use of TRs booklets and tapes and see that he continues daily TRs Training on the Interneship.

When a look into a situation does not readily show up a Why, go earlier and find out what happened.

ETHICS

The only hidden barrier to real success in Cramming is non-participation, the indicator of Out Ethics. A Cramming Off must recognize Out Ethics and get it handled. He may be able to get the Staff Member to handle it on the spot, or he may have to send the person to Ethics or even to Integrity Processing. The point is to recognize the barrier to progress and get it removed.

SUPERVISOR CRAMMING

Unless Qual is also correcting Training where needful, Cramming will be overloaded with flubbed products who didn’t get the data in the first place and are now goofing on their Tech or Admin post.

The Qual Sec should inspect Course rooms daily. Does the Super have his E-Meter set up on his desk ready for an M2 or M4? Is the Super moving around the class constantly, handling students, keeping them moving and F/Ning? Actual Super two way comm with students should be listened to and TRs and Supervisor or study tech correction written up.

Does the Super have a Qual OK to do Word, Clearing M2 and 4 on his students?

Are there student graphs up and posted in PT? Are the Roll Books properly filled in and in PT?

Are all points of “What is a Course” in?

Are there any students on strange or irregular schedules?

Is the Supervisor at least a Mini Course Supervisor Course grad?

Are there other Supervisors training on HPCSC and postgraduate Supervisor training (HSCSC) or schedules to go for such training?

Are Supervisor TRs poor or choppy? Do they do daily TRs?

Are blown students immediately contacted, brought in and handled?

Can the Supervisor “see” what is happening in the Classroom? Can he handle what he sees?

Any Supervisor with down stats, drop-outs, blows or slow students must become bait for a continuing correction program until the standard is way up and into an acceptable level.

The value of a good Academy or HSDC Supervisor, who runs snap and pop courses, gets his students through rapidly and thoroughly is extremely high. In this case, he is personally worth about two times that of a top HGC Auditor in terms of beans into the Org. HAS and HQS Course Supers prove their worth in future beans and re-sign-ups in the Org. They help to create future business in the Academy and the HGC. Therefore, proven top Supervisors should not be ignored as areas of facility differential.

A Supervisor is handled in Cramming like any other person in for correction. The Situation is located, the Why found and the handling for that Why executed. There are many such Situations and Whys to be found on most to get them to a point of being flubless Supervisors. It is a no more lengthy cycle than getting an Interne through his Interneship.

A. To rapidly prepare a person for post or technical action, through intensive study, Word Clearing and drilling on key materials.

B. To rapidly correct a person after the fact of an error or flub, by finding the Why, and handling that Why with study and Word Clearing of the particular data involved and drilling the actions to a point of confidence and competence. This covers Cramming Orders sent to Qual or originated by the Cramming Off or Qual Sec on Outpoints in the Org.

The administrative and executive staff of an Org require Cramming as much as technical personnel. The handlings are analogous.

The cycle goes like this:

1. Hat checksheet completed in staff training.

2. Cramming ordered when a staff member flubs.

3. Cramming to find and handle the basic reason for the continued flubs, if present.

4. Ethics, if proven necessary, to no change or improvement or refusal to be corrected, overtly or covertly.

Post duties break down into various skills just as they do for Auditors or C/Ses or Course Supervisors.

The Admin Cramming Off has a vested interest in seeing that Staff Training exists and produces hatted staff members who can do their post duties competently. Where staff training is lacking, he must work with the Qual Sec and STO to get it into operation.

The steps of handling an Admin Cramming cycle are:

1. Find out what happened or is happening.

2. Establish the situation (biggest departure from what should have happened or should be happening).

3. Find the why for that situation on a meter.

4. Write up the handling to eradicate the why and get a return towards the Ideal Scene by Cramming on the key issues for the area and removing any blocks to their implementation.

ORG OUTPOINTS

In doing Org outpoint corrections per HCO PL 30 Aug 74, “Qual Stat Change”, look at the GDSes first. Take up any and all GDSes with down stats or trend, and cram all personnel directly involved with making the GDS on visible outpoints until the stat starts going up. That means keep on correcting outpoints, by pushing in Policy and Tech until you get a stat recovery occurring. Then take up the Dept stats and get them going up. Then take up the Section stats and get them going up. Checking on stats before doing Org outpoint correct actions narrows the target to the areas needing correction.

There are sometimes more areas which can cause trouble than a Cramming Officer may realize. These separate out into:

The Cramming Officer does not do all the handling on staff but gets the person to work with other staff in Cramming or bring in fellow staff to work with and the Cramming Off sees that each step is done correctly.

The only test of successful Admin Cramming is that those staff crammed are now doing better and their stats are up.

Ideally, an Admin Cramming Officer should be an HPCSC/OEC Graduate. If this is not so, then the Admin Cramming Officer must rapidly complete his/her hat checksheet and embark on a study program of all OEC Volumes in order to be able to fully function on post. For Why Finding he must know the Data Series PLs and how to handle an E-Meter and have an OK to L&N.

All new Bulletins by Class or technical PLs issued are checked out on all HGC Auditors and Internes by the Cramming Officer within 24 hours of receipt. The Cramming Officer has these main actions which he ensures are done by all HGC Auditors, C/Ses, and Internes:

A. That they read the new Bulletin fully.

B. That all misunderstood words are fully cleared, using Method 3 & Method 4. Starrate checkout is then done by the Cramming Officer or Interne Supervisor.

C. Clay Demos are done of the key principles in the new Rundown.

D. That all new procedures or Rundowns are additionally drilled, including E-Meter drills if required by the procedure, in Cramming.

E. Writes up a list of “Okays to Audit” for the procedure or Rundown and sends to D of P for use in Pc assignment.

Any confused technical questions, strange ideas or considerations expressed are immediately handled with Word Clearing. All Case Supervisors and Tech and Qual personnel on technical posts must also check out on all new Bulletins and technical Policy Letters. They do A, B and C above.

The Cramming Officer must have a special High Crimes New Issues Log Book. He lists down one side of the page the names of all the personnel involved. Across the top of the page, he lists the appropriate HCO (or Board) Bulletin or Policy Letter, with a line going down the page.

When a new HCO (or Board) Bulletin or technical Policy Letter arrives in the Org, a copy must go immediately to the Cramming Officer. He logs it in his book and ensures that sufficient copies are made immediately available for checkouts to be done within 24 hours of receipt.

High Crime checkouts are done by Auditors to their highest Class. For example, Class VIIIs would check out on all new issues. An HDC would check out on any new Dianetic issues. A Class IV would check out on all Class IV issues. Where an issue is not applicable to an Auditor or staff member, a slash is put on his section of the book when the issue is entered. A Supervisor would be logged to check out on any new Supervision or Study Tech Bulletins or PLs. The C/S checks out on all new issues.

High Crime Checkouts can be done by the Cramming Officer or Interne Super. The Cramming Officer will retain the High Crime Log Book and continue to be responsible for them being in PT. Any High Crime Checkouts done by the Interne Super must be logged in the book by the Interne Super daily.

MIMEO DELAYS

The Cramming Officer must make a special report to CS-7, CS-1 and CS-5 at Flag if there is a delay in the supply of Bulletins and Policy Letters into his/her Org. This is a serious matter and must be reported immediately.

Mimeo Checklists of all issues are sent from Flag to the Orgs periodically.

ETHICS INSPECTIONS

The Ethics Officer should inspect the High Crime Log Book weekly to ensure that checkouts are in PT.

If the checkouts are not in PT, he must call an Ethics Hearing on the Cramming Officer and chit the Qual Sec.

Violations of High Crime Policies are not to be treated lightly and are handled per HCO PL 8 Mar 66, “High Crime”.

Attestations are not accepted on any High Crime Checkouts.

TECHNICAL OKs

Any person who does a technical action must get an OK to do such an action from the Cramming Officer or Interne Super.

There are a few terminals outside of Tech and Qual who do technical actions who should also get a Qual OK and these are the Ethics Officer for PTS Interviews and handling and the Success Officer on his meter handling of completions.

If a new auditing rundown comes out, the C/S is expected to get an OK to C/S that action from Qual.

The way to put this in on any existing staff who do not have such OKs is to make up a list of what needs to be done and then give a short time limit on the completion. Do not use this Policy to stop existing production. If the OKs have not been given, pull them in and get them done. In such a case, the Qual Sec, Cramming Officer and Interne Super would be expected to work together to get it done.

OKs may be withdrawn by the Qual Sec, Cramming Officer, or C/S if found to have been falsely issued by reason of repeated flubs.

ALL TECHNICAL PERSONNEL ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND IMPROVE THEIR TRS THROUGHOUT ALL TRAINING AND INTERNESHIPS AND SERVICE IN AN ORG OR FRANCHISE.

The LRH Model Auditing Tapes and materials are the only guide to perfect TRs.

Any questions or queries or strange ideas about any TRs must be immediately handled with Word Clearing on the relevant material.

Beware of quickie TRs or Auditors who do five minutes of TR 0 and then say that they have improved their TR 0 and confront. Watch out for Auditors who cannot or will not do two hours of confront or Auditors who cannot deliver 2l/2 hours of auditing and short session. Be on the lookout for Supervisors whose students blow or who have small classroom attendance.

Auditors and Internes get their TRs training done outside of production hours and time must be provided daily for this to be done. Each personnel may not be prevented from doing daily TRs. Technical reports show that some Auditors do not get in their minimum 25 WD hours showing the vital need for lots of TRs to be done. Poor scheduling keeps Auditors waiting, and unnecessarily lengthens their auditing day, leaving no time for daily TRs. Daily TRs and Auditor and Interne training times actually reduce time in Cramming. Auditors and Supervisors do not have cases and are expected to work on their TRs daily.

Special TRs booklets and tapes have been compiled for Cramming Officers to assist them to get real correction of TRs done in Cramming.

These materials comprise all materials on TRs 0 to 4, Upper Indocs and the Auditing Comm Cycle, issued as individual booklets on each TR.

The only way to correct TRs is by taking each one individually and tackling it as a subject on its own. This is made possible through the individual booklets and tapes.

The tapes also must be listened to from the viewpoint of the TR being corrected. The Auditor, Interne or Supervisor has the LRH Model Auditing tapes and special LRH

TRs demonstration tapes to use. They must be taught to listen to a single TR in order to correct it.

The Cramming Off must know these materials cold so that he can direct the person to the exact material every time to resolve the situation.

All Cramming Officers are to put up a large well lettered, permanent sign in the Cramming area:

GOOD CRAMMING IS THE KEY TO FLUBLESS AUDITORS AND AUDITING LRH

A Cramming Officer must be an experienced Auditor up to the highest Class of auditing he/she is Supervising. A failed Auditor on post will only result in failed correction cycles. Another Cramming Officer is appointed to handle students and admin cramming cycles. This has been proven a successful action.

The Cramming Officer keeps a log book of all Cramming actions done and weekly reviews the types of Cramming actions going on with the different Auditors. He could find at this point that a certain Auditor has been crammed on three slightly different but related areas. He can, at this point, call the Auditor in and handle the more basic outness isolated.

Packs of materials to do with a subject or action should be compiled for Cramming—e.g. Rudiments, Listing and Nulling, TRs, etc. If an Auditor goofs on Rudiments, he reviews the little pack, word clears it, drills the actions, etc.

Word Clearing is used very heavily in Cramming. Auditors are not “sent to Word Clearing” when it is required. They are just twinned up and word clear the materials ordered in Cramming. If a student is consistently goofing on data contained in a particular level or course, he can be ordered to word clear the entire materials on that checksheet in Cramming.

When certain materials have already been word cleared and the student is still goofing on the procedure, it must be considered that he has a confusion re the sequences of actions and the student must be very heavily drilled on that action.

The Cramming Officer has the whole resources of the Org Library to call upon. Many books contain key data applicable to every level and these should be used liberally in Cramming.

If an Auditor is showing ignorance of a datum or rule, it is quite possible that he never read it.

The three main areas investigated in Cramming are:

1. The student or Auditor never read it.

The exact data may not have been on an earlier checksheet done on a subject. So one always ensures that all the data is to hand and reviewed.

2. The student or Auditor has misunderstoods in the material.

Handled fully with Word Clearing, always on the whole text of the materials goofed.

3. The student or Interne has confusions on the sequences of actions.

Handled by drilling. Can also be handled by HC lists.

One point that the Cramming Officer must watch out for is overlong Cramming Orders. An overlong Cramming Order would be one that contained more than four or five issues. Such a Cramming Order is actually a training cycle and should be done in staff training. Overlong Cramming cycles tend to bring about a backlog because they cannot be handled quickly and completed. Qual is a corrective Division and should not get into routine training actions. Routine training belongs in the Tech Division. The Cramming Officer does NOT accept overlong Cramming Orders.

NO F/N AT EXAMS

Per C/S Series 86RB, BTB 20 Jan 73RB, “The Red Tag Line”, the Examiner sends a copy of the list of the day’s Red Tags to the Cramming Officer.

A Red Tag Pc report must lead at once to Cramming of the Auditor, the D of P, the C/S and the Tech Sec. They are immediately crammed on the appropriate materials with all Mis-U words cleared up and any Why found on the meter as needful.

Any discovered instance of a non-F/N VGIs folder not being relayed to the C/S, and thus discovered by the Cramming Officer, must result in an immediate Ethics Hearing for No Report.

1. 2 points for all Cramming actions completed on Tech, Qual or HCO staff including Word Clearing on the appropriate materials, any Why Finding needed, accompanied by an acceptable Success Story.

2. 1 point for all Cramming actions completed on Dissem, Treasury, Distribution and Exec Division staff, including Word Clearing on the appropriate materials, and Why Finding needed, accompanied by an acceptable Success Story.

3. 2 points for each issue or tape or drill completed by Auditors, Internes and Tech or Qual personnel on Okay to Audit checksheets or Okay to do technical posts with key materials fully Word Cleared, starrated and drilled. Includes Okays to Audit for new Rundowns as issued so long as any key related HCO Bs and metering required are studied, drilled, the procedure drilled on a doll, and after a Tech Course in each case.

4. 2 points for each completed Cramming cycle originated by the Cramming Officer which handles a more basic or broader area of situation to the original just handled or a needed Retread in Tech on Tech, Qual or HCO personnel (per Cramming Series 25).

5. 1 point for each completed Cramming cycle originated by the Cramming Officer which handles a more basic or broader area of situation to the original just handled or Hat or Series Retread in Tech on Dissem, Treasury, Distribution or Executive Division personnel.

6. 2 points for each new Bulletin or Technical Policy starrated by all concerned within 48 hours of receipt.

Note that there is a penalty of five points for each undone Cramming Order caused by lack of materials, Word Clearers or Tech or Admin Cramming personnel if stale dated 48 hours. Note that this stat is not the same as the Qual GDS and contains additional points to cover the Cramming Officer Post duties.

Reissued 9 July 1974 as BTBCramming Offs Revised 26 November 1974C/Ses CANCELSBTB OF 12 DECEMBER 1971Issue XIVSAME TITLE

Cramming Series 8R

C/S Series 70R

HOW TO WRITE UP A CRAMMING ORDER

There is a certain technology on how to write up a Cramming Order.

1. Isolate and state briefly the exact outnesses (in the Pc folder or staff member area).

2. Order those HCO Bs or PLs crammed.

The Cramming Officer also looks in a slightly wider circle around the data flunked and locates which basic is involved (e.g. Auditor’s Code, TRs, metering, handling a session, handling the Pc as a Being, or student basics and staff basics) and gets that crammed, too.

The Cramming Officer is not bound to accept any Cramming Order if his own investigation proves that something else entirely needs correction. It is part of the Cramming Officer’s responsibility to prevent Wrong Target correction. According to Qual Senior Datum, the Cramming Officer must not take orders but must do his own investigation and handling. It will be found that there is usually a valid corrective action to be made. He does not just waive the cycle if the original order is incorrect. He finds out what is really wrong and corrects that.

Written & Revised by CS—5 Ensign Judy Ziff

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

8 DECEMBER 1971RemimeoAll C/Ses Reissued 3 July 1974 as BTBCramming OfficerHat CANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER 1971SAME TITLE

Cramming Series 9

C/S Series 68

THE C/S AND CRAMMING CYCLES

A fast way for any C/S to go into Doubt about the skills of his Auditors is to send them to Cramming and get only a “done” back.

Cramming is there to find the real cause of any error. So if the real WHY is not made known to the C/S he has a “something is wrong with Joe’s TRs” which hangs up in time and never is resolved.

A response from Cramming to an order from the C/S to “check his TRs—Pc’s TA went low in session—” which states: “I checked his TRs and they are good. But he audited the Pc in a room that was overhot and the cans were too big. He has been drilled on Auditor’s Code and session environment handling and HCO Bs on TA Errors and now has this down pat. It won’t happen again,” leaves the C/S in no doubt as to what really happened. What’s more he can order this repaired on the Pc by a “2wc on times he felt worried about his TA or F/Ns” taken E/Sim to F/N (which will clear it up).

Furthermore the Auditor now knows that the C/S knows what the real error was, doesn’t get hung with a withhold or a false idea about his TRs from the C/S.

In essence one is putting the Exact Truth on the line.

So the following rule is now mandatory in all HGCs and Quals:

THE CRAMMING OFFICER IS ALWAYS ON ANY CRAMMING ORDER TO REPORT THE EXACT OUTNESSES FOUND OR THE EXACT SESSION GOOFS, WITH ANY ADDITIONAL DATA, IN DETAIL, TO THE C/S.

A C/S receiving a Cramming Order back giving no Why or an unreal Why that does not make sense when compared with the session and its results MUST return the Cramming Slip to the Cramming Officer requiring the Why be found or the wrong Why abandoned and the real Why found and corrected.

A good C/S should know his Data Series down cold and be able to spot such outpoints at once. He would go over the session with the Cramming Officer and point out what it is he wants handled.

This data is not theoretical but is taken from actual practical experience in C/Sing.

Whilst it is known there is a lot of good Cramming being done in Orgs, the quality of Cramming needs to be increased in order to back up the current expansion occurring in Orgs.

The Cramming Officer is second only to the Qual Sec in technical quality and post expertise.

In order to upgrade Cramming quality, the following should be done:

A. Get the current Cramming Officer completed on all post requirements and operating efficiently. He handles tech and admin Cramming.

B. Post an Admin Cramming Officer who apprentices under the current Cramming Officer, taking the load of Admin Cramming and allowing the Cramming Officer to take on the full duties of Tech Cramming Officer, handling all Auditors, C/Ses, Internes, Supervisors, students and technical Cramming actions.

C. Both the Tech and Admin Cramming Officers enroll onto the HPCSC and get it completed.

D. The Tech Cramming Officer does any Tech Courses not yet completed in his Org, in study time.

E. The Admin Cramming Officer does the OEC, commencing with Vol 5, in study time.

And thus, we have expert Tech and Admin Cramming Officers on post.

A busy Cramming Officer needs a Qual Page to get people in for their Cramming cycles and High Crime checkouts, otherwise he can waste valuable minutes and hours chasing up people. The Qual Page can also get needed Pc folders or packs and materials from the Library as a service to the Cramming Officer.

The high degree of personal attention in Cramming brings about a situation whereby a Cramming Officer can handle about 20 students at one time before he will tend to become overloaded. In this case, a second Cramming Officer must be added to reinforce the area. The Qual Sec and Org Officer must be alert to this or the area will get jammed and production lines slowed.

The target being worked towards is:

1. A Class VIII or IX Ex Dn HPCSC Tech Cramming Officer.

2. A Class IV OEC HPCSC Admin Cramming Officer.

Then you would really see the fur fly. As these levels of post training are acquired, we will see a gradient and continual improvement in the tech and admin quality, existence of Source and use of materials of Dianetics and Scientology in Orgs.

Orgs will become fully On Tech, On Policy and In Ethics and will be truly KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.

Written & Revised by CS—5 Ensign Judy Ziff

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

A number of LRH Cramming cycles on Auditors, C/Ses, Execs and Admin people have been compiled for this Bulletin. They should provide very helpful guidance to the specific approach to individual correction in all spheres by a Cramming Officer.

AUDITORS:

1. “Auditor’s missed an F/N. Check meter position and general admin habits that would cause this. She must be able to see the meter, Pc and admin in one look. Check eyesight. Also Code and TRs, of course.” LRH 13 May 72

2. “Worksheets utterly indecipherable. She ‘clarifies’ by over-writing words in blue, instead of correctly printing above in red. Have her practice legible handwriting rapidly until she can.” LRH 13 May 72

3. “Does not put enough down in a worksheet to make sense. She must learn what to put down, what not to. Things that move TA, Dn step numbers, items that fall on 2wc and overts and withholds. And enough sense so a C/S can use it and see what happened.” LRH 13 May 72

4. “Commits auditing error, blames Pc. Get off her overts on Pcs. Check her out on Standard Dianetic C/Sing.” LRH 12 May 72

5. “Missed first item’s F/N on list. L&N laws. Metering. Check it for position during admin.” LRH 3 June 72

6. “Metering. Placement of meter may have been upset by concentration on admin. Missed a no-read on the Pc. Or isn’t checking. Get metering and admin sorted out as a co-ordination” LRH 2 June 72

7. “Flubbed ARC Break handling. Look at folder. Get the Mis-U and drill her on ARC Break handling.” LRH 6 June 72

8. “WCing over out lists, out ruds. M6 on key words of her post. M4 on programming sequences. In clay purpose of a program. In clay purpose of an Auditor.” LRH 18 July 72

9. “Auditor breaks up when Pcs say something funny by report. Clobbered the F/N. He also assessed an uncleared list and missed Mis-U words and didn’t handle even when it read. TRs the HARD WAY.” LRH 16 April 72

10. “D of P is to do C/S Series 57. A little can be done each day until he has completed it. It must be reported and metered daily for Mis-Us and honestly done.” LRH 15 June 72

11. “Auditor’s Pc is talking long long long. Clear Invalidation. Then work out in clay what Invalidation is and what it would do to a Pc. Then in clay how a Pc would Itsa overlong on out TR 2. Then TRs.” LRH 21 May 72

12. “Cleared words on a Sec Check. Couldn’t follow an ARC Break chain down or pull a withhold. Just sat and watched a meter. Didn’t do C/S. No session control. ‘Auditor Rights’ unknown. Retread Academy Levels 0 to IV. TRs.”

LRH 10 Sept 72C/S I/T:

1. “C/S Series M4. Then Study it. He missed obvious things and doesn’t head Auditors into a dead right correction.”

2. “Get this C/S to do C/S Series 57 as a familiarity action on the HGC. It can be done a bit each day. It must be metered as honestly done.”

LRH 15 June 72

3. “Gave a well done to an Auditor for Word Clearing over an Out List Out Rud Pc. M6 on his post. M4 on C/S Series, about sequence of Out Lists, ruds in programming. In clay on purpose and actions of a C/S in handling cases. In clay on purpose and actions of a C/S in handling Auditors.”

2. “Is flunking on evaluation. Method 7 WC Handle. Method 4 Data Series. Get him to define a Why per Data Series. Have him rattle off all the outpoints until he can, with examples of each.” LRH 11 July 72

3. “There is something adrift here. Possibly confront or people or getting people to work. She operates as an HCO Expediter. She is perfectly willing to work personally and does a good job. However, her actions here tell us why her Org fell apart with her as Org Officer. Instead of organizing—org boarding people, recruiting, training, hatting, putting in Ethics, etc—she clears up backlogs as an HCO Expediter. She does not get people to get the work done but does the work. Establish the fact—(2) Can she handle PEOPLE? (2) Can she recruit? (3) Can she train? (4) Can she compile packs? (5) Does she know theory of org board and posting? (6) Does she know Ethics, including Investigation? (7) Does she believe she can get people to work? Or is it ‘faster to do it yourself’? Straighten out what is found.” LRH 22 Jan 72

5. “Posting with a gap in Qual. No formal coverage of Interne Super functions while Interne Super on leave, thus overloading the QEO with Interne Super. HAS-HCO Cope Off Hat M4. In clay, posting an org board from the top down to cover all lower functions and why one does, shown in clay.” LRH 12 Mar 72

8. “Blames other activities for own stats and failures instead of policing and handling own area. Does not know a Why by definition is something you can use to improve a scene. (1) Check WCI for errors. (2) WC4 on Data Series. Get her to do numerous evals that have Whys you can handle (that don’t put it on God or other Divs).” LRH 27 Jan 72

9. “Data Series M4 and in clay. Gave me an eval lacking in CONSISTENCY (Why on one subject area—program on another). Did not locate the right Why.”

LRH 9 Mar 72

10. “She is to be crammed on (1) What files are. (2) What the uses of files are. (3) What her products are.” LRH 15 Mar 72

11. “Is not being a Product Off for his Div. Stats way down. Out Admin and Out Ethics in Div. Find out why he can’t get production or quality. Cram.”

LRH 22 Mar 72

These are just a few examples of LRH Cramming cycles to give Cramming Officers more real data on how to USE the tools of Qual to get his product of a corrected individual who can now function in his area.

In all cases, when the basic outnesses were corrected, one or more of the three major stable data of Cramming were present: (I) the person had not read or studied

the materials, or (2) he had misunderstoods in the materials, or (3) he had not drilled the actions or sequences of actions to a point of competence.

In all cases, also, all tech personnel had their TRs corrected and improved while in Cramming.

All the tools of Tech Cramming are applicable into Admin Cramming, as can be seen by the above examples. Admin Cramming is vital to pick up, revitalize and get a floundering Division, area or Org on its feet and operating.

Word Clearing plays a key role in Cramming, so there must always be a minimum of two Word Clearers in any Org. If an enterprising Qual Sec wants to get some Word Clearers, his best action would be to word clear the HAS and all HCO staff on their posts and duties until they get the message on the value of Word Clearing. Any Qual Sec who has no Word Clearers or Word Clearing being done in his Div should be ordered to extensive Word Clearing by his CO or ED, and then crammed in his own Qual on his hat.

Cramming is not an area for weaklings or persons with no confront. It is probably one of the single most versatile posts in an Org. He has all types of staff with all types of flubs and outnesses to handle. He must use every skill he has, every piece of knowledge about Scientology and Dianetics, every piece of Policy, to handle his everyday work cycles. Any piece of tech by LRH, if a relevant handling for the situation, is grist for the mill of a Cramming Officer.

A good Cramming Officer, who uses all the tools of Qual to get his product, is worth his weight in gold. He is highly valued.

Ens. Judy Ziff CS-5

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

There comes a time in every Cramming Officer’s life when he has to face the situation of de-bugging a badly bogged tech personnel or staff member.

This is caused by these factors:

A. Staff member refuses to do the Cramming Orders through post overwhelm or incorrect Cramming Orders not corrected by the Cramming Officer, thus violation of Qual Senior Datum.

B. Staff member has done the Cramming Orders to apparent GIs and F/N but has not been fully honest in Cramming, thus causing by-passed Whys and post inefficiency. This person is glib and lacks confront.

C. Staff member was never Crammed in the first place.

There is a way out which can unlock the situation, enable the real data to be located, so the Why or Whys can be found and handled.

THE METHOD

This method works in Tech and Admin Cramming quite efficiently, if thoroughly and honestly done.

1. Tell the person what you are going to do. Get his agreement to proceed and be assured of his participation.

2. Get the person to write up a full list of all done or not done Cramming Orders, with exact specifics, and all outnesses listed separately. Details may have to be obtained from the Cramming Log Book. Every time something is repeated, put a slash alongside the item.

3. Now ask the person to write up any other Off Policy or Out Tech actions being done or not done on post which have not been picked up.

4. Add these to the original list, putting a slash every time an item is repeated.

5. Now work with the staff member to group the outnesses together by subject area, level or basic.

A. Tech personnel outnesses will sort out into training levels or into basics of auditing, course or case supervision, as applicable.

6. Add up all the slashes of the combined items. This will locate the Major Situation, as the one with the greatest number of slashes, and the Minor Situations, the remainder in order of number of slashes.

7. Take up the Major Situation and indicate this to the staff member. This should bring in VGIs. If not, go back and redo the above steps, adding any missed data, until you do get VGIs.

8. Now find the Why for the Major Situation. This must bring in VGIs. The Why Finding is done on the Meter.

9. Work out a Handling for the Why which will handle the hell out of it.

10. Get the Handling done immediately.

11. When the Handling has been completed, send the staff member to the Pc Examiner. If no F/N VGIs, find the right Why and complete the Handling indicated by the right Why.

12. End off the Handling of the Major Situation to F/N VGIs.

13. Now take up the Minor Situations in order of greatest number of slashes, and find each Why and handle separately.

14. There can be an EP to this action. The person has a tremendous resurgence of post efficiency, stats and morale and he is doing well again. End off the Cramming at that point, but see that remaining Situations and Whys are handled either in Interne or staff training.

This action can be done on an old-time Auditor who is anxious to return to auditing, in order to clean up the past major areas of failure. An old HPA/HCA could get this action done in Cramming, for a fee, of course, prior to doing an Academy Retrain.

The Cramming Officer must be familiar with all the tools he has at his disposal for the handling: HC List, Slow Eval Assessment, C/S 78 Wrong Why Finding Correction, Word Clearing, TRs, Admin TRs, Reach and Withdraw, 3 May 72 PL, C/S 53RI, PTS Tech, confront of MEST and work areas, various study and staff correction lists, Pre-PCRD assessment, disagreement checks, Integrity Processing, writing drill, plus the entirety of the Technology and Policy and Books of Dianetics and Scientology.

In working with lists which contain training and auditing correction actions, the relevant training correction actions are done in Qual and the Assessment form is routed to the Pc folder for the auditing actions needed to be done and Staff C/S advised.

Do not buy case reasons as Whys for staff member post flubs. There are always post or staff reasons for flubs. However, if the Cramming Officer finds that staff on his lines are mis-audited or not audited, he should chit the D of P and Staff Training Officer for failure to take responsibility for seeing that staff get regular Intensives on a rotational basis, and that staff members in trouble do have their folders checked for Out Tech and do get corrected.

When it is found that the staff member never studied or checked out on key data or post hat material in the first place, the correct Cramming handling is to cram in the key material so the person can now function, and see that a post training program is written up by Pers Programmer and done in staff training.

The one to five steps in the method above do not take more than a half to one hour at the most.

Do not hesitate to use TRs and drills on staff members in Admin Cramming. They need TRs and drilling as much as Tech personnel.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE STAFF MEMBER WHOHAS NEVER BEEN CRAMMED IN THEFIRST PLACE

As Admin Cramming starts being used more regularly in Orgs, Cramming Officers will find themselves with bogged staff who have never had any Cramming. He will then be handling an actual backlog situation which is unexpressed.

In this case, he should get a write-up from the Div Head involved of exactly how this person has been operating and the outnesses observed. The Cramming Officer should then get the person himself to write up what he considers that he has been or has not been doing, plus a write-up of exactly what post training the person has had The Cramming Off goes over the data with the person and they sort out and group the outnesses as found, thus locating the key outness to be handled. For this person, the handling will be what will rapidly handle the Why found and enable the person to function on post. This action must be followed by an immediate post program by the Personnel Programmer and completed in staff training.

The Cramming Off must report Div Heads who won’t cram their staff to the Qual Sec for Cramming correction orders on the Div Heads themselves.

The steps of this Bulletin are remarkably efficient in locating major hidden areas of outness in order to be able to handle them. The hardest part in handling a person who is badly bogged is just where do you start? These steps give an exact sequence to do this and are incredibly easy to do.

Ens. Judy Ziff CS-5

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

A Cramming Officer can fail in his efforts to correct a flubbing staff member if he tries to cram over out ruds.

Cramming done over an ARC Break, like Auditing, will result in the person getting worse, more out of comm or misemotional. Cramming a person over a problem or W/H will produce no change so no correction will occur.

Out ruds are easy to spot. The person with an ARC Break, won’t talk or is misemotional or antagonistic. A problem produces fixated attention that prevents Cramming from finding the actual area of difficulty. Natter and 1.1 remarks means a withhold.

Recently a musician being crammed kept bringing up a dispatch that he was in mystery about concerning the group. Every time it was mentioned it read or BDed yet the Cramming Officer continued “Cramming” him and never handled it. So no product.

I sat the musician down, told him he was crammed over a problem, the mystery about the dispatch, cleaned it up by getting the dispatch and letting him go over it, made sure the problem was handled then found the area of misunderstood and traced it back to an early age and the Why fell right out.

And I got the Cramming Officer crammed by the Senior C/S and found her Why too.

So the moral of the story is DON’T CRAM OVER OUT RUDS.

It is too costly in lost production and flaps.

CRAMMING OFFICER FLUBS

When the Cramming Officer flubs you must get him crammed fast because he will repeat the error on others and there goes your results.

In such cases, get him crammed immediately by the Qual Sec or Senior C/S. If it is the Qual Sec who has flubbed, then he is crammed either by the Senior C/S or the Keeper of Tech.

INCOMPLETE HANDLING

It is often not enough just to correct a Why and do no further handling in Cramming. Most Cramming Cycles reveal a broader area of situation which must also be handled.

An example is the Auditor who flubs on an L4BR and during the Cramming reveals he never really listened to the key SHSBC L&N tapes.

The Cramming Officer who does not also program the Auditor for a review of those tapes would not have fully corrected that Auditor. You could accurately predict future L&N flubs and pc upsets.

A subsequent program such as the one above would count as an additional Cramming Cycle for the Cramming Officer, or a Retread if lengthy and would count as additional points.

Therefore the maxim of Cramming is:

HANDLE THE HELL OUT OF IT.

Honest correction must be fully and completely done for the sake of the public and the org as well as the staff member.

SUMMARY

Cramming success depends on not Cramming over out ruds and on fully handling all areas of confusion or weakness.

Follow these operating rules and you will enjoy rave results and real correction.

All Cramming actions done in Qual must be done on a meter. This means metered Why Finding, checks for misunderstoods, scouting for areas of uncertainty, completion of clay demos and word clearing.

Neglect of the full use of the meter has led to half done, ineffective and often repeat Cramming cycles as the person’s why or M/U was never found in the first place. Even worse, a wrong why can act as a wrong list item which brings about case chaos.

Every Cramming Officer must know and use all his tools. This includes metering.

The tech of finding a WHY on an individual person is extremely important and is the fundamental tool of the Est O, Cramming Officer, Dept of Personnel Enhancement and others.

The resolution of a major broad WHY can depend on the finding and handling of individual WHYs. EXAMPLE: In LRH ED 1 74R INT the WHY of failures in Tech and Admin areas was found to be “STUDY TECH NOT IN USE FOR INDIVIDUAL WHYS FOR EACH SUPERVISOR AND STUDENT”. A similar example exists where tapes with Scientology materials were not in full or proper use, the WHY being “TAPES WITH SCIENTOLOGY MATERIALS NOT IN USE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHY FOR EACH ORG PERSON CONCERNED”. In each case, the tech of finding the individual WHY is necessary to handling the broad WHY.

This tech is contained in the DATA SERIES PLs and is restated here in brief form for finding the WHY on a person.

STEPS

1. Know the Data Series PLs. (Don’t have any misunderstood words on them.)

2. Work out exactly what the person should be producing.

3. Work out the ideal scene.

4. Investigate the existing scene.

OBSERVE THE SCENE around the person for outpoints related to what the person SHOULD be doing in an Ideal Scene.

Verify that there is a situation with that individual and that you know what the situation is. Don’t go trying to find the WHY of a no situation. (A bad situation is measured by the difference between existing scene and an Ideal Scene and threat to Ideal Scene.)

6. Do not at any time ask the person for the WHY. If the person knew the WHY, the situation wouldn’t exist.

7. Use the comm formula and get your questions answered. Don’t be diverted by the person’s “reasons”.

8. Note all outpoints.

9. Be alert for the area(s) with the most outpoints which relate to the situation.

10. Verify the data by looking This will often reveal the major outpoint which leads to the WHY. It must be realized that you are often looking for an OMITTED something, hence a knowledge of the Ideal Scene and product is required.

11. When you find a major outpoint, trace down the chain of outpoints to the WHY. Pull the string by asking more questions in the area of the Major Outpoint.

12. The big crashing outpoint that explains all the other outpoints will be the WHY.

13. The WHY must have something to do with the person. If not, you will have a “Why is God” and it won’t resolve.

14. Indicate the WHY to the person. Correct WHYs result in Cogs and VGIs. A wrong WHY can make the person feel degraded, will not bring in VGIs and will not lead to a resolution of the situation.

15. Look over existing resources.

16. Get a Bright Idea of how to handle.

17. Handle or recommend handling so that it stays handled. The handling of the WHY must directly relate to the WHY that was found.

EXAMPLES

1. Situation: Supervisor not using study tech.

Investigation: Supervisor was observed, found to be very casual with students. No 8-C. Supervisor questioned. All outpoints in area of Supervisor not wanting to tell students what to do and himself not liking to be told what to do.

WHY: Big button on control and does not want to control others. WHY was indicated with cognitions and VGIs after initial HE&R on the subject.

Handling: Objective processes especially SCS.

2. Situation: Student taking forever on study of tapes.

Investigation: Observed student transcribing tapes so he could later look up the words. Didn’t know why you don’t go past a misunderstood word.

WHY: Never studied the study tech.

Handling: Primary Rundown.

3. Situation: Staff member not doing his job. Ineffective on post.

Investigation: Found out what the person was doing. Found he was given and had been doing the functions of another post.

WHY: Accepting illegal orders.

Handling: Offload of extraneous functions. Word Clear relevant PLs.

4. Situation: Folder Page backlogging folders. Not getting them through to C/S.

Investigation: Questioned Folder Page to find her product. Found it was a C/S not overloaded with folders.

Investigation: Checked hat and flow chart. Found flow chart had been done but never referred to and missing all the key points where Pcs can stall on lines. Expecting Pcs to arrive back at HGC of their own accord.

WHY: Unawareness of lines and terminals and how they can be influenced.

Handling: Line Drills (following pipes and flow lines in an engine room). Make up correct flow chart and drill it.

After finding the WHY and getting the handling implemented, the situation is again reviewed to see if it still exists. If so, a wrong WHY was found. The Handling is to redo the steps and get the correct WHY. A WHY which cannot be handled or does not lead toward attainment of the Ideal Scene is of course a wrong WHY.

The finding of individual WHYs on persons is normally a very fast action. The WHY is simply found and the handling implemented.

The more you do of them, the faster and more expert you become.

METERED WHY FINDING

When Why Finding is done on a meter, the above steps still pertain; however, meter reads are used to help establish the situation and track down the WHY. Falls or a BD would indicate the right area. The correct WHY would result in F/N, Cog, VGIs. (At this point, you would indicate the WHY and continue with steps 14—16.)

Metered Why Finding should end with an F/N. Worksheets are kept.

After any Why Finding, metered or not, the person is sent to the Pc Examiner. The worksheets are routed to Tech Services so they can be filed in the person’s Pc folder.

EXPANDED DIANETICS is that branch of Dianetics which uses Dianetics in special ways for specific purposes.

It is not HSDC Dianetics. Its position on the Grade and Class Chart would be just above Class IV. Its proper number is Class IVA.

It uses Dianetics to change an Oxford Capacity Analysis (or an American Personality Analysis) and is run directly against these analysis graphs and the “Science of Survival Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation”.

EXPANDED DIANETICS IS NOT THE SAME AS STANDARD DIANETICS AS IT REQUIRES SPECIAL TRAINING AND ADVANCED SKILLS.

The HSDC is qualified to run Standard Dianetics. He is not authorized to run EXPANDED DIANETICS without special training.

DO NOT MIX EXPANDED DIANETICS INTO STANDARD DIANETICS.

It often happens that one technology’s skills are mingled with another’s. The result is that neither then work.

Standard Dianetics will go right on producing results.

The main difference between these two branches is that Standard Dianetics is very general in application. Expanded Dianetics is very specifically adjusted to the pc.

Some pcs, particularly heavy drug cases, or who have been given injurious psychiatric treatment or who are physically disabled or who are chronically ill or who have had trouble running engrams (to name a few) require a specially adapted technology.

A very good Dianetic and Class IV auditor (preferably HSDC & Class VI) can be specially trained to run Dianetics against the OCA or the Chart of Human Evaluation and handle other items of great value to a pc.

STUDY(Subject to Change)

This training would consist of

1. HSDC

2. STANDARD DIANETIC INTERNE HGC OK TO AUDIT

3. Class 0-IV Academy (or Class VI)

4. PRIMARY CORRECTION RD HCOB 30 Mar 72 if Primary RD not done

5. Full Word Clearer Rating

6. FESing

7. Expanded Dianetic Tapes and HCOBs

8. Programming

9. C/S Folder Study

10. Active Auditing on the skills taught

11. C/Sing Expanded Dianetics.

CERTIFICATE

The Certificate would be HUBBARD GRADUATE DIANETIC SPECIALIST.

The Certificate Level is just above Class IV.

Class IV is required. A Class VI SHSBC may be substituted for Class IV.

CHARGES

Hours of Expanded Dianetics, because of the skills required, should be at least half again or double as much as Standard Dianetic Auditing or Lower Grade Auditing.

The cost of the Course would be the same as the HSDC Course and additional to it plus Interne fees.

PREREQUISITE

HSDC and Dianetic Interneship minimum with a successful period of Standard Dianetic Auditing as an auditor and is Class IV or VI.

Case gain as a Dianetic pc, and all Lower Grades Triple.

DEVELOPMENT

Neither the Course nor Expanded Dianetic Auditing may be sold by an org unless the org has an Expanded Dianetic Specialist, to be specific, an HGDS.

WHEN RELEASED THE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT IN CENTRAL ORGS (LONDON, WASHINGTON, LOS ANGELES, JOHANNESBURG, DENMARK AND SYDNEY) AND SHs. IT IS THE SPECIAL COURSE THE CONTINENTAL CENTRAL ORG TEACHES.

The HCOBs relating to Expanded Dianetics will be released as a part of this series so that orgs will have them when it comes time for them to acquire the tapes and teach this course.

In the meanwhile these orgs should be making HSDCs and Class IVs.

PERSONS NOT TRAINED ON IT MAY NOT RUN IT OR USE IT REGARDLESS OF CLASS.

To repeat, Expanded Dianetics does not replace Standard Dianetics or any other Class and is itself and is used for its own specific purposes on special cases.

3 APRIL 1972RIssue IRemimeoEx Dn Revised & Reissued 6 June 1974 as BTBChecksheetHCO BULLETIN OF 3 APRIL 1972Issue IISAME TITLE

Expanded Dianetics Series 2R

CLEARING LISTS AND R3-R

“A great many people can’t go into Dianetics at all. They can’t run an engram at all.

“That is uniformly one of two things: it is drugs, or the commands have not been cleared.

“This is very interesting to you, that FAILURE TO CLEAR UP ALL THE WORDS IN THE COMMANDS WITH THE PC, AND THE FAILURE TO CLEAR EVERY ISOLATED DIFFERENT WORD IN THE LIST, INCLUDING THE TINY LITTLE WORDS (‘IS’, ‘THE’, ‘FROM’, ‘SUCH’), CAN CAUSE YOU TO GET READS ON THE ITEMS THE PC HIMSELF HAS GIVEN YOU, THAT AREN’T VALID.

“Now it is not: Do you know what this word means? You ask: WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF________?

“They can’t give it to you? Have your stuff right to hand. Look it up.

“Have your metering perfect and all the rest of that, but clear up those words and you’ll get the pcs that fail.” LRH

The following is a list of the words in R3-R Procedure and the L3-ExD RB.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON EXP DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN C/S I INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY FULL REPAIR OF IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS.

1. There was an Earlier Similar incident. _________ Indicate it, flatten the chain.

2. There was no Earlier Similar incident. _________Indicate it. Determine if the chain is flat or if the last incidentneeds to be run through again. Complete the chain to F/N byindication or D/L if needed, or by flattening it.

3. There was an earlier beginning. _________ Indicate it. Handle with R3R and complete the chain.

4. There was no earlier beginning. _________Indicate it. Complete the chain with R3R ABCD on last incidentif unflat.

As the Dianetic Specialist (HGDS) is often called upon to handle pcs who are not well, it is vital that he knows all about and can use “PTS Tech”.

All sick persons are PTS.

All pcs who rollercoaster (regularly lose gains) are PTS.

Suppressive persons are themselves PTS to themselves.

If a Dianetic Specialist does not know this, have reality upon it and use it, he will have loses on pcs he need not have.

There is considerable Administrative Tech connected with this subject of PTS and there is a special Rundown which handles PTS people.

They get handled if the auditor knows his PTS tech, if he audits well and if he uses both the auditing and Administrative Tech to handle.

The Administrative Tech requires an interview, usually by the Director of Processing or Ethics Officer and the person is required to handle the PTS situation itself before being audited. A check for stability is also made after being audited on the PTS Rundown.

For this reason, HCO B 17 April 72 and all the checksheet of HCO P/L 31 May 71 must be fully known to the Dianetic Specialist.

HCO B 17 April 72 is also C/S Series 76 so as to be sure that Case Supervisors handle the Admin and C/Sing correctly.

Interviews to discover a PTS condition are done on a meter with all reads marked.

The Interview asks (a) about persons who are hostile or antagonistic to the pc, (b) about groups that are anti-Scientology, (c) about people who have harmed the pc, (d) about things that the pc thinks are suppressive to the pc, (e) about locations that are suppressive to the pc and about past life things and beings suppressive to the pc.

In doing the Interview the Interviewer must realize that a sick person is PTS. There are no sick people who are not PTS to someone or a group or something somewhere.

A somewhat suppressive pc will find the good hats suppressive. This does not relieve his condition. He is PTS to SP people, groups, things or locations, no matter how SP he is.

He can have been audited by someone he knew in an earlier life and who goofed the session. A few auditors have since been declared. Not because they goofed but because they were SP.

However, some PTS pc will make trouble for good people because that is what PTS means (Potential Trouble Source). So do not buy all the good people he is PTS to.

Further, when you do get the person or group or thing or location the PTS person will F/N VGI and begin to get well.

The PTS condition is actually a problem and a mystery and a withdrawal so it is sometimes hard to find and has to be specially processed (3 S&Ds) to locate it.

Usually it is quite visible.

Don’t have a sick, rollercoaster pc appear for Interview and then say “not PTS”. It’s a false report. It only means the Interviewer did not find it.

The pc sometimes begins to list in such an Interview and such an Interview where a wrong item is found has to be audited to complete the list or find the right item. (See C/S Series 78, HCO B 20 Apr 72, Issue II.)

So Interview worksheets are VITAL. The Interview should end on an F/N.

The Interview is followed by the Ethics action of HCO PL 5 April 72 or other Ethics actions such as handling or disconnection and posting as called for in policy.

An Interviewer has to use good TRs and operate his meter properly and know 2-way comm and PTS tech.

Some Interviewers are extremely successful.

Such Interviews and handling count as auditing hours.

When properly done, plus good auditing on the PTS RD, well people result.

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1972(Amended & Reissued 28 March 1974—only change is Series No.)Remimeo

Expanded Dianetics Series 6

C/S Series 82

DIANETIC HCO BINTEREST

On two certain subjects the “Interest?” question is omitted from Dianetic R3R patter.

On drugs and when running Evil Purposes or Intentions one does NOT ask the pc if he is interested in running the item.

The requirement on both drug items and intentions is that the item read on the meter (suppress and inval can be used) and has not been run by R3R previously.

Many pcs, it has now been found, have replied “No, no interest” on a drug item, the item has not been run and the pc then continued to have trouble with drugs.

Checking back pcs who returned to drugs after auditing showed “drug rundowns” that were so brief as to be nothing. One pc who had been on LSD for years had only a I hour quickie drug rundown. Later this person relapsed.

Tracing this, in each case the “Interest?” question had been used and the pc had replied “No interest” BUT MEANT “I’M NO LONGER INTERESTED IN DRUGS.”

So Drug items that have read are run R3R without asking for interest. The command is simply omitted.

In Expanded Dianetics the same thing has occurred in running Evil Purposes or Intentions. The Auditor asked the pc if he was interested in running the item and the pc said “No” and so it went untouched. But the pc had it confused with interest in doing the purpose and missed running it and then fell on his head later. Tracing the case back it was found that R/Ses and such had not been run due to the pc saying “No Interest”.

Nothing bad will happen if the item is run.

C/S RESPONSIBILITY

The C/S must keep telling his auditors, on drugs or Expanded Dianetics, “Omit asking for interest on R3R on these (drug) (intentions). Run them if they read on the meter.”

REPAIR

In repairing cases it is good sense to check this point on drugs and intentions to see if they were neglected in R3R due to “no interest”.

I have done a review of several failed cases which blew or went bad after auditing.

THE COMMON FACTOR IN EVERY ONE WAS CASE BY-PASSED DUE TO “NO INTEREST”.

The auditor finds a reading drug item or an evil purpose and proposes to run R3R on it. The auditor asks if the pc is interested in running it. The pc says, “No.” The auditor does not run it. BANG, we have a BY-PASSED CASE.

The pc will blow or go sour or not recover.

One of these cases was unchanged after “a drug rundown”. He had a pair of eyes that looked like blank discs. Check of folder showed all major drug items “not run due to no interest”. The solution was to recover the lists, run the items that had read R3R triple and complete the case.

Another one blew. His folder was examined. Every evil purpose had been left unrun! Of the items from the “Wants Handled Rundown” the intentions were mislisted. The drug rundown failed due to “no interest”.

Each flubbed case I am finding has had his drug items and evil purposes left unrun on R3R due to “no interest”.

So DON’T ASK FOR INTEREST ON INTENTIONS, EVIL PURPOSES AND DRUG ITEMS.

IF THEY READ, RUN THEM!

REPAIR

1. On any stumbling case that has had a “drug rundown” or Expanded Dianetics get the Folder FESed to see if reading items were left unrun on R3R Triple. List them chronologically, early to late.

2. Get the case back, with an R factor of “Incomplete”.

3. Run every one of those unrun drug items, intentions and Evil Purposes.

4. If the items don’t now read, then get in Suppress and Invalidate on them.

Only the touch assist is given. TA is high at exams. Auditor C/Ses for a C/S 53.

LRH—— “The C/S will probably handle. Could be PTS Roller Coaster.”

NEXT SESSION AUDITOR COMMENT—

When pc back on cans from any break TA is up, but immediately blows down.

LRH—— “Probably cans dry or something, could be mass that moves. Not important.”

AUDITOR’S C/S—

1. Cont M 1 W/C to F/N list. 2. Hav.

Session goes fine.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT—

She’s doing well. There’s a bit of pain in back. I had her hold the cans to exams. So she had them in contact after session. And there was no TA trip. TA was 2.75 F/N and no big BD.

LRH—— “Very Well Done. Good on cans. Back pn requires a very extensive touch assist using both sides of spine and also body extremities and head. (Toe, back, hands, back, head, back, toes, etc, each one several and on both sides.) Your C/S is Okay. Get as a completion a cured person.”

AUDITOR’S C/S—

1. Touch Assist. 2. Hav. 3. Cont M 1 to F/N list.

Touch Assist only done next session.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS—

Touch Assist fine. No F/N at exams so I took her back and really finished her, to nice cog, pn gone, and F/N VGIs.

8RR clean but not F/Ning. Next session WCCL clean even with supp but not F/Ning.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS—

Something wrong here—no pn at all in back today. (TA normal range 2.7.)

LRH—— “Well Done. No EP as you say.

1. 2wc to F/N.2. Assess C/S 53.3. Handle.

When you assess it, 2wc the earliest read and so on down the list so you findout what’s up. If Int, lists or Ruds read, Int Ext Corr List, L4B or Ruds will have to be handled.”

WCCL and 8RR F/N.

A NEW PROGRAM IS WRITTEN—this in accordance with Exp Dn Tape 3 where the actual Exp Dn auditing is programmed as a separate grade and written on a blue sheet. Intentions are added because the pc R/Sed.

Pc runs very well for several sessions. At end of session on PT Environment Buttons pc says—”One problem with sessions, face gets tired (smiling so much) haven’t felt as good as this in a long time,” F/N VGI.

AUDITOR INSTRUCTIONS—

May Declare.

1. Have you any doubts or reservations that you have attained the ability to handle your PT Environment?2. Would you like to attest PT Environment handling complete?

Pc does with VGIs.

LRH—— “Very Well Done.”

A few sessions later the auditor is 2wcing at the start of a session and picks up an ARC Break. There is no F/N so goes to GF and F/Ns on M/W/H. (Does not complete the ARC Break chain.)

*FOOTNOTE: The “Wants Handled RD” as outlined in Expanded Dianetics Series 21, HCO B 28 March 1974, was originally called the “Sanderson RD” on Flag. (TEAM C/S.)

LRH—— “Well Done.” LRH adds to the C/S:

“0. Repair ARC Break of last session. O/R?, Not there? Handle and F/N.”

Running LX lists, pc after session does not F/N, TA 3.6 clean. Auditor takes her back and does a C/S 53. “Have you committed any Overts”, “False TA” and “Not Saying” read. Auditor exhausts possibility of False TA and then takes up Overt. VGIs at session end but TA 3.2. Dial F/N at exams. Auditor says pc tired.

LRH—— “Well Done by Exams. Please don’t run on wrong whys. She wasn’t tired, AND we always end a session on an F/N. The reason it took so long is you kept saying ‘Supp’ ‘Inval’ WHEREAS GROUP C says E/S to F/N.

Study the C/Ses you do, particularly C/S 53RRR. You have now left earlier charge unhandled and next session she may natter at you.

She comes up with an ‘I stole a pin from HASI’ sort of patty cake, you buy it, no E/S and no F/N.”

LRH C/S—

“1. R-Factor. On the overt chain we were running, there was no F/N. I want to check s’thing.

Something you didn’t do?________(note read)

Something you did do? ________

Something someone else did? ________

Take what read and say, ‘It was something________’ (whatever read).

Now what was it? ________

Get what it is by steering if necessary then when she says it, if no F/N, go earlier similar.

If no joy, take the other read (on C/S 53) and say, ‘There’s something you’re not saying. What is it?’ Get it. F/N or E/S F/N.

If still no joy ask her, ‘Well did you murder somebody?’ ‘Did you rob a bank?’ ‘Did you forget something that burned the house down?’ Get the overt !

2. If ‘Not Saying’ was not used then ask, ‘What is it you’re not saying?’ If it was used above say, ‘Is there something you’re not saying to me or others?’ E/S to F/N it.”

LRH—— “It isn’t that you didn’t use E/S you just didn’t get an overt first. The stuff you bought was drivel. You don’t run overts like a phonograph record, you get the overt.”

Auditor uses 1. fully and gets the overt. Pc R/Ses on “going into action”. On Murder Technique the pc says, “There was a fire in store room. I put stuff next to heater. Don’t consider it an overt.”

LRH—— “Very Well Done. You did it. That’s the old Murder Routine. The mechanism is ‘worse than’. This routine is just one version of it. Joburg 1960, earlier DC, it was

‘Tell me something worse than (the body condition)’ repetitive bypassing all F/Ns will cure a cripple.

This pc (what she considers an overt) has several Evil Intentions (R/Ses) and will need the Wants Handled RD. Letting ships on fire is NOT an overt to her! Sex is so evident. Psychoanalytical background.

Session is classic.”

A few days later pc assigned a personal condition of Danger.

AUDITOR—

Suggests L1C Recently to handle.

LRH—— “Ethics. Don’t audit pcs in Ethics, this isn’t right Tech.”

LRH—— “Pc in Ethics trouble. We got to her too late and some senior is across lines. (If they’d waited a day she wd have made it.) You don’t audit a pc in Ethics trouble unless you do a 3rd May 72 P/L on her with L&N.

Off auditing until out of Ethics. That’s by the book.”

MAA— Next day pc has 1 hr 20 min PTS Check by MAA.

PC—Next day pc is upgraded to Emergency. Auditor asks if OK to continue program.

LRH—— “PTS terminals found very extensive for a PTS Check. PTS RD must now be completed.”

LRH C/S—

“ 1. Fly all ruds Triple. 2. Using terminals from interview and any other do PTS RD per HCO Bs. 3. Run Can’t Have on those already R3Red. You R3R Triple the terminals first.”

Later in the PTS RD the auditor 2wc to F/N and starts Fl R3R on a terminal. It bogs. Auditor goes to L3B but TA remains high and does not resolve. Auditor suggests C/S 53RC and handle.

TA still high so auditor does C/S 53RC. Int reads so does Int Corr List. “You ran went out” reads sF. Auditor runs Int as far as Sec F1 and it bogs.

LRH—— “Hey I never told you to run Int! That wasn’t the C/S or any part of it. She ran leaving and have to stay and I’m sure you’ve run Int the second time.”

LRH C/S—

“ 1. Was the Int RD done before? Spot exact place it was flat. Date to blow. Locate to blow. If you can’t do this give to an auditor who can and take her back. 2. C/S 53RC. Handle to F/Ning list. 3. L3EX Dn general to F/N list.

Don’t restim her further! Don’t miss any F/Ns.”

AUDITOR—finishes LX3, LX2, LX1 items and Sanderson RD.

GRAPH when pc complete 12.6.72.

Pc attests to Exp Dn complete. New OCA is up. She is 60 pounds lighter.

Total No. of sessions 48. Total hrs in chair 91 hrs 51 min.

Compiled by: Ex Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

AUDITOR’S COMMENT—Pc started a little gripey about clearing words, but became interested when he discovered there were some he didn’t know!

LRH—— “Very Well Done. Out WC Ml probably helped cause his illness. Ethics action was indicated here; WC Ml declared prior to 21.9.71 but you found the list hot. Some WCer couldn’t WC. We will let it go; this was excellent.”

Next session pc does not seem to be interested in anything. Auditor checks “No Interest in the first place?” Pc says, “No, none at all. Actually no real interest in running Exp Dns. I’m not saying it’s not going to work, but so far it hasn’t got anywhere near what I want handled.” LF.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS—Pc’s in-session mannerism is a slightly covert amusement, deprecating attitude. Very interestingly this “Nothing there” is a recurrent pattern from his very first auditing. Had a lot of trouble on his XII Rundowns with the same thing. Good TA on those attitudes we have run. I feel this needs an undercut but don’t know what to suggest.

LRH—— “Well done. But hey! Do you see the hidden standard on page 6 of your W/S. Now this is not beyond Exp Dn. It’s great. It tells you a fixated interest. (He’s also plenty out ethics by W/S comments.)”

LRH C/S—

“ 1. 2wc MARK ALL READS AND BDs. Get it to F/N. ‘What do you really want handled?’

2. Get the best read out of all this. It will be an item or attitude or emotion or some such thing. Probably a condition. Express it the way he says it and be sure that’s what it is & the way he says it.

3. Put it into R3R chain of when he had or did it. Then chain of another had or did it. Then chain of others had or did it. If it’s a doingness like a habit, it’s a did it. If it’s a condition like an emotion or attitude it’s a had it.”

LRH—— “Very very well done! This one needs hav before and after. You chose the wrong next somatic. He F/Ned on ‘The pain’. List is ‘The pain’ ‘Headache’ ‘Knees hurt’. If you run ‘The somatics’ again you’d double run.”

LRH C/S -

“ 1. Can squeeze. Find a hav. Get an F/N.

2. Check with him if it’s handled. If not ask, ‘What remains to be handled?’

3. If he gives you anything add it to list, get best read and check interest and best read R3R Triple.

4. If he says all handled, then go to W/F (5a. of Pgm). Just assess.

5. Havingness.”

Admin Note: (LRH) “If you use a list in session leave it in folder. I had to find one to get what it was.”

10. If nothing runnable out of the above, do a touch assist to 1st EP. (Added to program as 5e.)

Next session pc has no interest in LX items. A touch assist was given. Pc goes to the examiner after and says, “The same thing happened today as yesterday. Headache intensified as day went on. It’s pretty bad now. That’s all.” 2.6-2.2 falling and clean, Med GIs.

“Well he hasn’t made his hidden standard yet. Headaches are rough to run. Usually (from 1968 Tech) they are taken apart by finding what PSEA is connected with the headache and run that.

Headache is after the fact of being hit in the head. There’s a lot on this in earlier Dn.

He gave it to you and you ran it narrative. Well okay. If you recall the earlier materials however, it says a headache is after the fact of an injury so is not the beginning of the incident. Headache and this chain you ran all had E/B! You should realize that.

So now we know (though no real fault) that this pc:

1. R/Ses = Psychosis equals succumb.2. A headache is usually after the engram of injury. Leaves an E/B.3. That aches are taken apart for PSEA.4. That the case is slightly misprogrammed and needs INTENTIONS not attitudes as the attitudes are after the fact of an evil purpose in a psycho case.

So we repair this failed chain headaches. We get the intentions in the head by an L&N list or we look up old Ev Purps run (were wrong or he wouldn’t R/S still).

We reprogram for intentions, not attitudes for reason of the R/S = Intention very strong to die. So pc won’t get well until Intentions handled.

BEWARE OF A WRONG LIST.

An R/S pc is trying to die (evil purpose) and the auditor is trying to make him live. This gives you an intention counter-intention = problem, so all such pcs are problems to audit.

See C/S Series 22, 28 Nov 70, ‘Psychosis’.

So change the program to include Intentions as a type of attitude.

Headache is common with out-Int. We have to know before we go.”

LRH C/S—

“ 1. Assess

A. This headache is because of a misrun went-in chain

B. This headache is after some injury

C. This headache comes from an intention

2. We handle the best read. Use

A. = Int Ext Corr List.

B. = List somatics of injury.

C. = List Intentions to a BD/F/N Item and R3R it.”

Next session pc reads on “This headache comes from an intention”. The Item from the L&N step is “An intention to exteriorize”. This is run 3 flows R3R.

b. List intentions by best read and exhaust R3R Triple to F/Ning list.

7. Attitudes from Expanded Gita, clear, assess, and run R3R Triple.

8. 2wc “Gains from recent auditing”.

9. OCA.

AUDITOR’S C/S—

1. Hav to F/N.

2. Assess: The head, the body, gains, expansion, going OT.

3. List from best read and exhaust R3R Triple.

4. When H. Std. gone, go to step 3 of Pgm of 13.4.72.

Next session auditor did the above C/S and also a “Danger Assessment” ordered on all crew as part of a Danger Condition Program. On this assessment on the question “Are you doing something harmful” the pc says, “Holding on to whatever is making me ill.”

1. Test out current Hav process of pc. If no longer increasing can squeeze, find a new one.

2. Hav to F/N.

*3. List to BD F/N item “What intention would make you hold on to whatever is making you ill?” R3R Triple on item.

4. If not now handled, do L3Exd on the area M5 1-80 to F/Ning list.

5. If not now handled, 2wc “What he wasn’t able to do because of it”.

_____________________________

*FOOTNOTE: This is a borderline L&N question as it lists a significance (intention) with a significance. This is explained in HCO B 28 Mar 74, Exp Dn Series 21. (TEAM C/S.)

List all LF, BD items and R3R Triple times he was made to ...... times he made another . . . . ., etc.

6. If not now handled, 2wc “What it got him out of doing”. Handle as in 5.

7. If not now handled, 2wc “What it would cost to lose it”, R3R Triple “Times he lost a .....”, on all LF, BD items.

8. When H. Std. blown go to 3 of 13.4.72 Pgm and handle.

Next session on 3 of the C/S pc’s item on the Intention list is “To not get too powerful so I can’t do too much”. The pc on flow 2 R3R says, “It’s blown” and when after F3 the auditor asks if the thing handled, pc cognites, “I just realized where the last of what is left is just me looking to see if it’s gone!” Wide F/N VGIs. The auditor leaves C/S steps 3-7 and continues the new Pgm at step 3.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT — We blew the H. Std.!! When we got on to the “Win, conquest” area, pc started R/Sing, and got protesty. TA froze and then rose, so just destimmed it and got out. Looks very good otherwise. He sure didn’t want to know about area.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done. It was too heavy. Be alert now for out lists or out Int. (Ext Int may be out.)”

Next session on step 6 of the Pgm while auditor is writing list the pc itsas about how it shouldn’t be called Dianetics and how great it is, the TA drops to 1.6. The auditor 2wc “Inval”. This raises the TA to 1.8 but instead of continuing the 2wc the auditor changes to Hav process. Later pc talking about Ext.

LRH COMMENT—

“Well done by Exams. You should have continued the 2wc until the TA came up. Don’t chop a TA off low. This has not F/Ned on the 2wc.

The low TA goes low when the person feels overwhelmed. An Out TR can do it. Usually it comes right on back up. You should have carried it on until it did. Don’t spook on a low TA and don’t end one off, anymore than you would a higher TA. Like on 2wc the pc’s TA goes to 3.2, so you don’t stop. You F/N it.

C/S is OK.”

AUDITOR’S C/S—

1. Clear and assess Int Corr List and handle.

2. Continue Pgm.

Next session nothing is handled on Int Corr List and auditor continues Pgm. Pc red-tabs at Exams. Auditor takes pc back in and handles with an L1C that leads to an L4B. 11 —”Have you thought of items that you did not put on the list” reads and auditor takes it up. The item “To put force into the body” LFBDs and F/Ns.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS—(17.4.72) “Daring auditor rides wall of death to bring home bacon” (N. Y. Times 18.4.72). Pc has a new H. Std.

LRH COMMENT—

“ Very well done, C/S very OK.”

AUDITOR’S C/S—

1. Hav to F/N.

2. R3R Triple (if interest) the purpose “To put force into the body”.

3. Assess: “You are prevented from exteriorizing because of: a. A misrun went-in chain. b. An intention. c. An opposing intention. d. Times it was dangerous to leave. e. Times it was dangerous to go out.”

I’ve had it going more aeons than I can easily remember. And now it’s gone. No more, finished. Handled. And it feels great.

Thanks to my auditor for the application. Thanks to the Commodore for the Tech.

___________________________

*FOOTNOTE: Listing an “Intention” opposing an “Intention” does violate HCO B Exp Dn Series 21. In another folder LRH says, “You are really only correctly Exp Dn if you run Intentions on TERMINALS.” In this case the auditor got away with it but in the long run it tends to restim the bank and can spin a pc. (TEAM C/S.)

GRAPH WHEN PC COMPLETE 18.4.72

Total No. of sessions 14. Total hours in chair 25 hrs 35 min.

LRH Final Note: Hidden behind all the effort to get the case moving was a completely untouched Drug Rundown. Since then the “No Interest” way of by-passing a case has been discovered, in part because of this case.

This pc was well when completed but not sane and he later blew. The “no interest” he kept putting out on items defeated a full recovery. A great many evil purposes were left unrun, the listing questions (listing a significance from a significance) and failure to R3R drugs, by-passed the basic case. He got well, he didn’t become sane. To repair and attain full recovery all “no interest” items would have to be run now.

CASE WAS SIMPLY INCOMPLETE.LRH._________

Compiled by:

Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

“Very well done. This case roller-coastering like mad, note 4a on Pgm.”

Auditor continues program, pc declares Ml verification.

MO REPORT—Pc’s temperature is staying low 35.8 (37 normal).

PTS Check done by D of P. D of P says, “He is not PTS Type A or Type 1.”

LRH COMMENT on D of P Interview—

“Not accepted.

Interview not okay. Merely failed to find it. Redo interview.

He’s been sick, incapable and is terrified of past crimes on track.

He says he’s broken off with everybody.

D of P’s cue should have been to query just this. He has not formally disconnected by the book. Just went into hiding.

Find out who amongst all these was antagonistic or, in any event, find the SP group, person or thing.

For instance, even my slight data on him shows him PTS to the U.S. Navy.”

D of P redoes interview. Finds terminal.

LRH—— “Excellent and thank you.”

EXPANDED DIANETIC PROGRAM written as further set-up to finish up his PTS RD on 6.5.72 by Dn Spec.

PTS Disconnect written. Has had PTS RD Jan 72. D of P interview Apr 72 has uncovered new terminal on the case.

1. 2wc “Attention on” to F/N.

2. R3R Triple and Ruds and Overts on terminal if known before this life.

3. PTS Correction List to F/Ning list.

4. Attest and program for Exp Dn.

Program started. Terminal not known before this life so not run. Auditor assesses PTS Corr List and handles. On question 10 “It can’t be handled anyway” pc says, “Has to do with exterior bit we went through before. I get down tone every now and then. I want to be exterior with full perception.”

AUDITOR’S C/S AND COMMENT—

Doing okay. List has not F/Ned—may have attention on something.

He has a Hidden Standard of long duration on going Ext with full perception since he was a child.

1. Fly each rud.2. R-Factor “We need to take the PTS Corr List to an F/Ning List.”3. Assess and handle the F/Ning list.

LRH COMMENT—

“Well done.

You don’t fly ruds over an out list. Int—Lists—Ruds is the only handling sequence there is. Don’t alter sequence.

Use suppress and inval on the list and if any trouble do an L4B.

C/S otherwise okay. (LRH scores out 1 of Auditor’s C/S.)”

The next session the auditor continues with the PTS Correction List. Pc says, “I’m not a PTS—feel blowy occasionally and worthless.”

AUDITOR’S COMMENT—

He now needs PTS interview. He’s not any easy Type A. He hasn’t spotted himself as a PTS but he feels “worthless” and “blowy” and has just recovered from sickness.

MAA does another PTS Interview.

Pc makes voluntary statement to D of P, after PTS Check, to the effect that he is not PTS, has had all the rundowns, and he lied his way through the last interview. Heavily asserting he is not PTS.

AUDITOR’S C/S AND COMMENT—

MAA PTS Check came up with terminal. Then pc comes to D of P and says it was all PR.

*1. 3 May PL including full R-Factor. When full formula written up— 2. Check last terminal found for known before this life. If so do PTS RD steps and Can’t Have on it. 3. If not do PTS Corr List to F/N list. Use Supp and Inval each line if needed.

LRH COMMENT—

“Boy, I’ve seen PTSes before but seldom as much as he is.Probably doesn’t know the words.”

Auditor continues, F/Ns the PTS Corr List and Pc declares.

EXPANDED DIANETIC PROGRAM written 27.5.72.

PTS now handled and declared.

*FOOTNOTE: When this part of the C/S was done, the auditor could not get a read on the Listing Question. Pc said he was not involved in any out-ethics situation F/N, and so the action was dropped.

Auditor starts program and continues doing Sanderson RD as stated in above C/S on BD areas.

AUDITOR’S C/S AND COMMENTS—

Doing fine but he hasn’t made his laudable H. Std. of “Ext with full perception”. Says the charge is off it but still wants to do it.

Seems to me he is sitting at the end of a problem—the solution of deciding to be Ext with full perception. If so, intentions prevent would only get the other half of the later problem and not the earlier one.

If so, the suggest would be:

1. L&N “What problem might being ext with full perception be a solution to”.2. L&N “What intention of yours is connected with (item)”.3. R3R Triple.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“You’re trying to run 3GAXX and calling it Exp Dn.

All these prevents on significances. You’ll spin him.

You are really only correctly Exp Dn if you run Intentions on TERMINALS.

You better get all cleared up on this before auditing him again. I don’t think you ever read or studied the Sanderson RD.

There is such a thing as a standard action. It’s done the way it’s done.

We’re not auditing in Keokuk on hunches and alter-ises. This is Flag.

You keep this going and you’ll be doing R2-12.

________________________

*FOOTNOTE: This program is a bit sparse as it does not include the depth at which the pc is going to be run, for steps 2 and 3.

**FOOTNOTE: This is out-tech as indicated by LRH later in this HCO B, and in HCO B 28 March 1974, Exp Dn Series 21, in that it lists an intention on a significance not a terminal.

Further the purpose of Exp Dn is to cure people or handle insanity.

The standard way to handle a hidden standard (which is not just a physical or mental difficulty but one by which the pc measures his case gains).

The Sanderson RD is a Wants Handled or Hasn’t Been Handled. Not a hidden standard which by the definition of its words is a case measurement thing used secretly by the pc.

We will admit this is a hidden standard. It’s different than Intentions behind Somatics.

To convert this to Exp Dn R3R:

1. 2wc to F/N.

2. L&N ‘Who or what would want to be Exterior with full perception’ (this gets it to a terminal).

3. L&N ‘What would be the intention of (item found)’.

4. R3R Triple on Intention found. (If it goes ‘me’ for 2 and back to ‘Want to be Ext’, drop it as it will run late in the engram like in Ext.)

3. Get what it is. Some BD Item. Use same phrasing he uses in doing L&N.

4. L&N ‘What intention is connected to (item in 2). (If he comes up with the same Ext thing, run it R3R and watch it, be sure to call E/B.)

5. Hav.

This is auditing by basic definition.”

The auditor did the above C/S and continued with the program, doing PT Env and C/S-6.

On 3.6.72 auditor receives note from pc that auditing “going in circles” and indication of no-case-gain, and out-ethics situation. This note was from pc to his senior and contained a list of overts and omissions on post.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

All PT Env 2wc items handled.

He wrote up the note before the session but I did not get it till after. May still have some ruds there.

“Well done. C/S is incorrect. You are about to start a major step (W/F Emotional) on a pc whose Ethics are out. Ethics go hand in hand with PTS RDs so 3 May PL comes before or after it.

This is one of your ‘In the org SPs’ in that he has only 1 SP who’s in the org. Yet the U.S. Govt and Navy smashed him. Means a wildly PTS OUT OF VALENCE person on a wrong flow. The ‘SPs are in the org’, get it? So he’s outside the Org criticising the Org so ......

Learn to audit-C/S cases by fundamentals not rules or orders. You would have missed this product a mile. He’s still so PTS he’s out of valence and in an enemy valence. Those overts listed prove it.

Requires a fast change of Pgm. I wondered where this case was at. Now I know. And so should you have.

R-FACTOR: The next thing on your program is a 3 May 72 PL.

1. 2wc ‘What do you have to say about that?’ 2. R-Factor: You are in Danger due to omissions. 3. Step 1. 4. Step 2. WC. 5. Step 3 L&N to BDF/N. 6. R3R Triple on item. 7. Step 4 L&N to BDF/N item. 8. R3R Triple on item. 9. Tell him to write up formula.”

This program was successfully completed by the auditor to Exp Dn completion.

PC’S SUCCESS STORY—

When the Commodore handles someone he handles the hell out of them, and the hell that came out of me was cracked by fantastic auditing.

I’ve had more case gain than I ever imagined possible. Thank you Sir.

GRAPH when pc complete.

Total No. of sessions 26. Total hrs in chair 38 hrs 28 min.

EXP DN TEAM NOTE—

This pc remained stably off MO lines. The drop of three of the points on the right-hand side of the graph was due to “no interest” in running R3R on all of his Ev Purps. See HCO Bs Exp Dn Series 7 and 9.

Compiled by:

Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

In the white on the right of the OCA. But pc has been chronically ill for a year. Her menopause started 2l/2 years ago and she has a suspected tumor of the uterus. In present time pc is terrified that she has a malignant cancer.

Very low on the Chart of Human Evaluation on several points. She attested OT III on 27.3.72 so she is out of the non-interference area.

Medical reports requested re pc’s cancer.

No sign of the pc ever having had a C/S 1.

EXPANDED DIANETIC PROGRAM by Dn Specialist. Approved and added to by LRH on 2.4.72.

PROGRAM STARTED — M1 going very well, and huge amounts of charge and misunderstoods coming off case. Three sessions later pc finds misunderstood which had her stuck in an incident and pc blows it with big win! Auditor ends off.

Some trouble at the Examiner with a new one the pc doesn’t like. Re-exam requested by the pc. Gets wide F/N VGIs on the win. Pc goes to Success and writes voluntary glowing success story.

That night Auditor takes pc back into session and continues WCM1. After session exam TA high.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Pc was doing fine on word clearing M1. I ended on a big win. (She wrote a success story, I’ve just received it.) But she didn’t F/N at the Examiner, she did on second exam which she requested. I took her in again tonight. We handled misunderstoods and WCCL and back to M1 but TA up at Exams.

“You O/R even further past the win by the Correction. When she did F/N (2nd Exam) you should have left it.

If no joy with 1 send folder to me rush.”

Auditor does the C/S, okay on 1 so continues.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

Rehabbed the win and continued M1. Pc started to protest (page 18). Her attention was on the big win again so I rehabbed it again. (Page 26 pc keyed in on counter-postulates she has.) I ended the session after the rehab.

1. Fly a rud.2. Verify M 1.3. Continue Pgm.

LRH COMMENTS AND C/S—

TO D OF P AND LEAD AUDITOR

“Well done by Exams.

D of P: ‘What did the auditor do?’

Lead Auditor: Re (auditor) please find Why of forcing a pc and O/Ring and handle.

(Also pc may be an Advanced Courses pc who doesn’t belong to you. See request in folders if [auditor] can’t do the history.)”

TO AUDITOR

“Well done by Exams.

There is an auditing error here. You don’t force pcs, particularly sick ones, never. You overrode her protest.

An auditor mustn’t have a tendency to Force or O/R against a protest without getting a Why of it.

This makes the C/S incorrect here as you would just force her further.

Auditing is for the pc.

Also when a TA tends to go up there’s something wrong, of which protest may be just a symptom.

1. C/S 53RRR Assess. Then check for any misunderstood words on it. (As it hasn’t been cleared.) Send to me. (If it has misunderstoods on it clear them and reassess.)

Also verify folder if this is a failed Adv Cse pc. If so give details.”

D OF P INTERVIEW—

Pc says, “Possibly some overrun that’s all.”

LEAD AUDITOR—

Found Why on auditor as having lost sight of her purpose and took pc back into session “to get her hours up”.

Report on pc in regard to Adv Cses—Audited 10 hrs on OT III finished in Review, has not had OT VII or OT IIIX.

LRH—— Orders his “last C/S to be done.”

Auditor assesses 53RRR. Int and lists and others reading—Wrong item F, Upset with giving items to auditor LF, Int tick and sF, TA between 3.0 and 2.8 during the assessment.

Auditor also reports pc was seasick during voyage.

Auditor returns the folder to LRH.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“A red tab with Out-Lists, was seasick but no dramamine.

* 1. Wrong Items L4B.2. Upset with giving items to auditor—L4B.3. Pc withholding—Pull all withholds triple.4. Self auditing between sessions—2wc, then get the prior confusion that began it.”

C/S is done the next day. There is a slight overrun at the end of session and no F/N at Exams.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT—

Outness was I went by the point of release to get prior confusion. Out obnosis, and auditing the C/S not the pc.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“You’re an Auditor not a student. So don’t act like a student learning to audit.

1. C/S 53RRR. Reassess with impingement with TRs in so you make any reads happen.2. Handle.3. Clear Hi-Lo List backwards, questions backwards from last question up.4. Assess.5. Handle.”

The above C/S is completed to a nice result and M1 word clearing is continued and completed and Pgm continued.

Pc running very well on the PT Environment.

In session of 19.4.72 pc says, “Spot on leg that hurts, want to go to Doctor.”

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

I noticed pc’s havingness drops very rapidly—would like to run havingness after each chain.

“Well done. C/S suggestion of running havingness after each chain not OK at all, would run a severe strain on pc extrovert-introvert wise.

I don’t see a PTS Interview or RD on this Pgm.

The auditing C/S is OK.

*FOOTNOTE: By Exp Dn Tape 4 Ext/Int reading on a list is handled by 2wc if the TA is in normal range. Here there is no sign of Int troubles and TA is at 2.8 and Int giving a very small meter read. It is omitted in the face of obvious out lists.

This pc is running great.

I notice mixed therapies present.”

(On 20.4.72 the PTS RD—if needed on PTS Interview is added to Pgm and on 21.4.72 Intentions are added to the Pgm by LRH.)

D of P Interview reveals there is more to be handled so a new Pgm is written.

AUDITOR’S NEW PROGRAM AND COMMENTS—

Per PTS Interview pc is PTS. Her graph has dropped on the left. Original program completed except for LXs not yet done. Chronic Illness now handled.

1. Disconnect or handle present PTS Type A situation through MAA.2. Havingness before and after major actions of the session.3. Clear each word on LX 321.* 4. Assess and handle LX lists R3R Triple.5. Check for and handle hidden standards on the internal trouble. (Sanderson RD added by LRH 2.5.72.)6. Full PTS Rundown.7. D of P Interview after RD.8. Watch pc’s folder for any new signs of RC or illness and if they occur, PTS RD Corr List and handle. New OCA.

The new Pgm is started and pc runs fine through LXs. On the LXs a bit of O/R occurs after a huge valence shift.

Auditor does step 5 of Pgm and comes up with more than one hidden std.

LRH COMMENT 2.5.72—

“Well done. She’ll need the Sanderson RD. I put it in.”

Pc finishes Sanderson RD and the PTS RD is started with a 3rd May PL.

The day after the pc is ill and writes a note and says she doesn’t feel out of Danger.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

No session but from pc’s note she’s rollercoastering. So I suggest:

1. L4B.2. Touch Assist.3. Havingness.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“PTS is from suppression of some sort, is rollercoaster. But—she was put in what was to her a wrong condition. Will turn on somatics and is kind of suppressive. So knowing the THEORY of PTS makes all that difference in C/Sing.

_________________________

*FOOTNOTE: Per a more recent LRH dispatch, the words of the LX List are cleared before assessing it and the reads taken as they appear.

2. 2wc on best read, E/S to F/N. If wrong condition tell her so after the 2wc and tell you’ll handle.

3. Touch Assist.

4. Havingness.

Complete Pgm or correct it in light of any data above.”

The above C/S is done and new data arises on the pc’s past entanglements with Ethics and conditions over quite a few years. A new Pgm is written.

NEW PROGRAM BY EXP DN AUDITOR 12.5.72—

This program to be done before step 5 of 25.4.72 Pgm.

Touch assist was dropped off the last Pgm. Pc has now come up with a new chronic condition of ear trouble (D of P Interview not mentioned previously). Present time only 2wced before, not assessed. Intentions weren’t stressed.

1. Hav run before and after major actions in each session.2. Touch Assist till body well.3. Assess Flag, the SO, Ethics, Out Ethics, Being a SO Member, duties, hats, schedules.4. Get intentions—others to her, hers to others, others to others and R3R Triple best reading items. Exhaust the list.5. Assess: Difficulties, being suppressed, attacks, enemies, suppressing, incomplete cycles, unmocking, defense, protest, make nothing of, withdrawing from.6. Same as 4 above.

A few sessions later the auditor runs two items which come from the PT Environment buttons (The SO and Attitude of Morals) and runs into trouble.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Something very wrong here, she came in with F/N VGIs, did well on havingness and Touch Assist, but rollercoasters on PT Buttons. On Ethics TA soars on clearing intentions (this also happened before, she protested intentions in an earlier Pgm). I feel this Pgm is too heavy for her.I think we’ll have to handle her current Ethics situation before continuing with auditing.

She is still legally married to a psycho, who has had shock treatment several times and who she admits has SP characteristics. She has also mentioned she would like to handle her children’s Out Ethics.

1. Handle all out 2D Ethics situations concerning her family properly— by returning to Australia if necessary for a divorce.2. Report to MAA when this is complete. Fitness Board.3. PTS RD plus Can’t Be, Do, Have Steps.

LRH COMMENT 16.5.72—

“Well done by Exams only.

The purpose of an auditor is to handle the pc. You did something goofy beyond belief.

Ran ‘Interest’ as an item. Then had trouble with the pc, then said offload her. To me this means you have decided to offload.

This is one of the goofiest sessions I’ve seen for a while. You can’t audit out pleasure moments. It hasn’t been possible since 1950, and I don’t know why you chase ‘Interest in the Sea Org’ as a bad thing and tried to R3R it. Positive don’t run. So Auditor to Ethics for a 3 May 72.

Pc being audited who is PTS and unhandled. D of P Interview to see if handled in any way.

Interest as an Item ? Morals as an Item ?”

At D of P Interview pc says doing very well, much better, VGIs, etc; but needle tight and sluggish and rises from 3.0 to 3.8.

Went fine but on PTS RD she can’t remember having had any S&Ds (two lots of S&Ds recorded in folder summary, but missing from folder).

I could start doing R3R on terminals from D of P Interview, while I sort out the S&D scene.

1. 2wc to F/N.2. Hav.3. Select terminal from 2wc on who she’s known this life that has troubled or worried her.4. R3R Triple, Ruds and Overts.5. Hav before ending.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

(Add to Pgm 20.5.72)

“Well done (C/S error on your C/S).

She had 2 lots of 3 S&Ds. This could be out lists yet they are missing. Look harder to see if pulled forward for a list correction. If still can’t find still do C/S (i.e. LRH C/S). If can find list do C/S.

Felt very good at one point, yes (F/N) felt OT (VGIs F/N) was playing around OT, yes (F/N IND).

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“Learn to see F/Ns, you just missed on the F/N that’s all.

1. Check F3 Jupiter. Did it erase, rehab point of erasure.2. If no joy do L3 ExDn on F3.3. Verify if any further terminals, if so handle.4. If all cool havingness.5. Declare PTS RD complete. (Next is Metalosis RD.)”

“Well done. You worry too much about TA. It has to go up to get TA action.”

Metalosis is continued and completed. Auditor suggests declare.

LRH COMMENT—

“Well done—25.5.72. Need D of P Interview. MO check and OCA before declare. Question is, is she a cured person.”

MO REPORT—

Pain in tummy on and off. Little bit of bleeding after the pain. Either she still has cyst in stomach or she’s mocking it up.

D OF P INTERVIEW—

Indicated something left to handle.OCA—

Very excellent change.

LRH COMMENTS AND PROGRAM 27.5.72—

“Incomplete product. Remains ill. Obviously PTS to other things. Illness— PTS. Could be out ethics and PTS. Metalosis not finished. PTS incomplete.Finish what we are on and then do more PTS RD. (Full steps not done andvery shallow.) Then 3 May PL.

* 1. 2wc ‘Tell me about your illness’ (for data). 2wc ‘What metal would one have in that area?’ Choose item R3R Triple. (Chastity belt is the obvious answer.)2. 2wc to fish for electric fields in the area. R3R Triple.3. Recheck all possible angles of field distortion of body in ill area.4. When all angles of fields and metal exhausted in area:4a. Ev Purps from L10. R3R Triple.

5. Go on with any missing steps of PTS RD. I don’t think ‘Who she’s after’ was done. Can’t Have RD.

1. 2wc ‘Tell me about your illness’.2. 2wc ‘What metal would one have had in that area?’3. Choose best items R3R Triple.4. Word clear electromagnetic field fully. Clear field distortion.5. 2wc ‘What could cause a field distortion in that area?’ Get items.

*FOOTNOTE: This is the “Metalosis RD” and will be covered more fully as to theory and application in HCO Bs later in the Exp Dn Series.

6. R3R Triple.7. Havingness.”

Pc is sent to the Examiner for “What did the Auditor do”. Pc says, “Overran me on some things and seems to be handling same stuff and re-running.”

LRH NEW C/S AND COMMENTS 28.5.72—

“Run this before 27 May C/S.

See Exam report. Pc looks very bad, much too bad for this much auditing, so sent to Exams by C/S for ‘What did the Auditor do’.

You’re O/Ring F/Ns and running things twice. This pc better start looking good. We’ve cured 3 of these cysts in the last couple of years, a 100% record.

The next session the PTS Corr List reveals that pc is still dependent on her SP husband for support, as divorce = loss of money. She had disconnected in every way except through this House = Money Line.

Pc has 5 Apr PL handling and decides to get the divorce.

D of P Interview to see how she is doing. VGIs, all illness fine. Doing very well. Tone 3.5.

Pc sent for re-declare. Wide F/N VGIs 21.8.72.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done. Nice change, Love Ron.”

SUCCESS STORY—

I was one of those tough cases, but I knew if me and the Auditor kept handling the hell out of it that one day we would get the last little bit holding it in place. Thanks to the Auditor we uncovered it and within a few days the illness miraculously disappeared.

My illness has gone.

Many, many thanks to LRH and my Auditor and the D of P.

TOTAL NO. OF SESSIONS: 56.

TOTAL HOURS IN THE CHAIR: 132 hrs 20 min.

Compiled by:

Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

5b. Get intentions connected to best reading items R3R Triple to F/Ning list.

6. New OCA.

The auditor does the entire program with Ev Purps coming off nicely. The OCA given at the end of this Pgm showed a slight drift of all traits except G which remained very fixed as the low point of the whole graph.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done. Somebody missed the Ev Purps on him.”________________________

*FOOTNOTE: Per a more recent LRH dispatch, the words of the LX lists are cleared before assessing it and the reads taken as they appear.

**FOOTNOTE: See HCO B 4 December 1971, “R-1C Assessment by Dynamics”.

THIRD PGM BY EXP DN SPEC—

The right side of his graph is coming up slowly but surely. But there’s more work to do—more O/Ws to get off.

0. Havingness at start and end of each session.

1. Pick up reading items from Admin Scale when previously handled and get “another’s intentions towards you connected to ( )”. Run R3R Triple.

His biggest concern right now is finishing his auditing, getting a post and finding out what’s going to happen with him. He’s stuck in a continuous PTP—Mystery as far as what will happen to him. He’s also stuck in a win from a session with (....) on 1 May 72.

1. Put him to work as an expeditor.

2. PTS Check and 5 Apr 72.

LRH PROGRAM—

“He needs 3 May 72 PL Steps.

D of P Interview to give him R-Factor C/S 5 May 72. Handle what comes up.”

LRH COMMENTS AND C/S 5.5.72—

“Well done. Conclusion reached is not the correct one for the case.

PTPs go with E/S, or Exp Dn. Also after a case F/Ns on a subject it’s usually blown. The answers tend to be what’s wrong and the F/N says no longer that wrong. Get it?

So now we can handle.

There’s an Out-Ethics scene with him. It F/Ned on worry about it but not what it was.

The OCA says he’s still bad off and it isn’t changing.

And he was the person making trouble in (U.S. Org) with borrowings and donations.

D OF P R-FACTOR:

The Commodore is trying to handle things so you can be sent back to (U.S. Org) very soon. In order to do this he has to make sure things will be all right with you and (U.S. Org). Your OCA is low and didn’t change.

There’s a new Rundown that handles this by handling the person’s personal life. If you are willing to co-operate we will do this. The Commodore is trying to keep Ethics off your back over the donations being irregular. This can be worked out but only if you co-operate.

Are you agreeable to do this new Rundown?”

The D of P R-Factor is done.

LRH C/S 6.5.72—

“To Cl XII auditor.

Do it gently.

Please do the PL 3 May all steps on pc.

Work it out as you go.

*Step 3 L&N ‘The Out-Ethics scene’ item.

Step 4 L&N ‘How it would be a betrayal to Scn and Flag’.

And get him to apply the formula.”

The above C/S is done and gets a VWD and at this point the folder goes to Dept XII (Class XII auditing) where the pc gets his L-10 and L-10M checked over and fixed, which takes one 7 hr session.

Pc now gets new OCA (11.5.72). This crashes badly. Trait C down to -52, Trait G goes lower to -84 and Point A down also.

LRH COMMENT 12.5.72—

“May have caved him in or made him more honest or made him guilty or something.

Needs Hav every session and will get the new PTS RD when it comes up.”

________________________

*FOOTNOTE: This is the incorrect L&N question. The correct question is “What Out-Ethics situation are you involved in?” per HCO B 10 June 72, “Refer to HCO PL 3 May 72 ‘Ethics and Executives’ “.

NEW PROGRAM BY CL XII 12 May 72. OKed and added to by LRH.

OCA Graph crashed after L-10M Corr.

Something missed.

Got to finish him off.

Uneducated pc.

“Use Hav every session.”—LRH.

0. Standard PTS Check as per HCO PL 5 April 72. Handle.

1. Ruds triple of long duration, including overt.

2. 2wc “Was anything missed in the last auditing that you had”. Get an answer. Handle what found E/S or by list.

7. Redo Method 1 W/Cing. (Was cheated on it as words of assessment were cleared.)

8. Full Flow Dn Table to completion.

9. Complete Expanded Dianetics started.

Exp Dn Auditor does this program. All goes fine. Pc running and having very big wins on PTS RD. On completion of Can’t Have RD PTS Corr List, pc takes a new OCA.

The OCA recovers somewhat. The -52 Trait C comes up and the Trait G (Responsible) recovers. But only to its original stuck point.

Auditor continues and completes step 6a of the Pgm.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

He’s already had the GF 40X items handled and redoing them was an O/R. He also was not quickied on either of his two M1 W/Cings so I left it alone.

1. 2wc to F/N.

2. Full Flow Dn Table.

3. Havingness.

ANOTHER LRH NOTE—

“This ‘stuck point’ of OCA is another Ev Purp, fixated. It will blow off or we’ll find it.

He’s going according to standard reaction except for one stuck point on the right.”

________________________

*FOOTNOTE: Method 6 is a method of assessment used in Cl XII auditing where each question on the list is assessed by looking at the pc and asking him directly.

LRH COMMENTS AND C/S—

“Very well done.

He doesn’t need a FF Dn.

We’ve sort of lost our place in the book on the Exp Dn RD. I see it ‘started’ but no Pgm.

Do new Pgm.

I see he’s had his L-10 Ev Purps.

This cat is nearly through.

He has a stuck viewpoint.

He has not had metalosis.

Exp Dn recovers graphs.

The stuck graph point is Responsibility Irresponsibility.

R-Factor: You will be here a few more days before leaving for (a U.S. Org).

1. Fly all ruds Triple (to get the air clean)—(Org associate) is leaving.

2. 2wc mark all reads and BDs as we want THE ITEM. ‘What would it be awful to have to take responsibility for?’ (and let’s not have an everything’s okay F/N). WC the hell out of the question backwards first.

There’s a trick of impinging such a Q after WCing. ‘Now I’m going to ask you a very serious question and I want you to give it every thought.’ Then ask it.

3. When you have the item that really read well, L&N ‘What would be the intention of somebody who would do that?’ If the answer to Q2 above was a goal or intention, omit this.

4. R3R Triple on it.

5. Havingness.”

The auditor does the C/S and pc has huge win, and goes exterior with perception.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 20.5.72—

WE FINALLY DID IT! ! !

His graph is beautiful. He totally changed—Ext + perception among other things. Your C/S hit right where he needed it. He finally got the R/S and Ev Purp run that was pinning him down.

Declare Exp Dns Complete.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

Absolutely classical. Exp Dn at its best!”

SUCCESS STORY—

I have never achieved so much. Boy!!!

This is a breakthrough beyond my belief. I feel clean, I have changed physically. I feel healthier and more honest.

Sir, all my thanks.

GRAPH WHEN PC COMPLETE—

TOTAL NO. OF SESSIONS: 19.

TOTAL HRS IN THE CHAIR: 46 hrs 20 min.

Compiled by: Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

On checking for PTS Type A pc says no. However, pc does feel she’s PTS to post environment Pc says, “I am physically sick and because of that I’m getting Exp Dn. So far had a lot of medical handling and so far not much handled. The Doctor I just went to seems to think he spotted some sort of worm in my system, but it’s not verified yet. MO should have the data but that’s a medical thing. I know that I’ve got an overactive colon and also an ovarian infection.

I don’t feel like I’m PTS—if I am it’s a case thing.”

D OF P COMMENTS—

Pc really not confronting, obviously she is still sick! But with D of P action could not punch through that and get what it was, or is. She’s just very strongly blank on it.

LRH COMMENT—

“No she isn’t blank.

She’s PTS to Environment of Post!

PTS is a Person or Thing.

New Pgm needed to list this.

D of P. Do on meter next time.”

LRH C/S 20.4.72—

“Says she was PTS to Env of Post.

She is PTS.

She thought you’d debar auditing I’m sure.

1. Clear backwards, L&N ‘Who or What in your post environment were you PTS to?’ Check for read. List to BD F/N item.

2. R3R Triple on item.”

The pc was not audited that day so LRH put the above C/S as Step 3a on the program and C/Sed to do Step 2 first.

LRH C/S 21.4.72—

“1. Who would I have to be to audit you? F/N.

2. What could you talk to me about? F/N.

3. Touch Assist.

4. Hav.”

The C/S was done. In addition the MO gave the pc a couple of touch assists for a pain in the lower tummy. The pc says at the Examiner: “It was a nice session. But there is something with R3R and me that don’t agree. But I liked the session.” TA 2.2 Normal F/N VGIs.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Pc’s in-session mannerisms are so similar to (Case B’s) initial sessions it’s amazing. The same “Well it’s a bit silly trying to run engrams on me, but I’ll play along” attitude.

We’re not in the pc’s area of interest.

0. D of P PTS check.

1. 2wc to F/N.

2. Clear L-3 Exd Word.

3. L-3 Exd RD to EP.

4. 2wc “What do you really want handled?” Note all LF, BD items.

On this day LRH sends a note down for the folder:

“This pc has had a lot of Evil Purposes found on L-10, etc that will have to be R3Red.

She has MisUs on and wrongly run Dn.”

The auditor seeing this note writes a note to LRH.

AUDITOR NOTE 23.4.72—

Dear Sir,

Per my 21.4.72 session pc is much stronger, having had regular Touch Assists from the MO. She is up most of the day now.

Also she ran into physical tiredness due to not having her usual mineral supplement from MO today. (Obnosis slip.)

I handled the TRs.

0. Ensure not tired and well fed.

“00. Fly all ruds” added by LRH.

1. Complete remaining terminals on Can’t Have.

*2. To D of P to verify or trace other terminals mentioned in end of today’s session to which the pc may be PTS.

3. PTS RD on any found if known before this L/T.

4. Check for any others.

5. Repeat 3.

6. Can’t Have RD on any terminals so handled.

7. When complete declare Exp Stability RD complete.

LRH COMMENT 15.5.72—

“Well done.

She’s very critical. Note the ruds added “

The PTS RD is extended for several sessions. Then pc goes to MO with heart palpitations.

MO MEDICAL REPORT 21.5.72—

**Heavy heart palpitations B/P 145/70.

Did a Touch Assist, brought it back down to normal 120/55.

Heavy gas pains on left side of chest and left arm alleviated by Touch Assist.

________________________

*FOOTNOTE: This was a D of P type Interview. When this comes up in the middle of the PTS RD like above this could normally be done in session by the auditor. (The why and handling steps are done in HCO or by the D of P per C/S Series 76.)

**FOOTNOTE: Blood Pressure (B/P) is measured as the maximum pressure the heart exerts through the blood system (the top figure) and the minimum pressure the heart allows through the system (the bottom figure). It is measured as so many centimeters of mercury. This is a method and unit of measuring pressure originally used by physicists.

For the last days when going to sleep heart palpitations started, and last night got so bad she could not sleep.

Given Calcium and Pantothenic Acid.

After the session on the 21.5.72 the auditor writes to LRH, along with his session comments and C/S.

AUDITOR’S NOTE 21.5.72—

Dear Sir,

Please note that 2 out of 3 terminals in this session were not this L/T terminals but suppressives of whom she was reminded by PT Restimulators.

This may have been an error to run.

Definite data not in PTS Pack. Is this an error?

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Thought you should see this one. She had had the heart palpitations which she was discussing in last session which occurred when upset by (__________) last year.

Well the 3 May PL produced a clear list Q and an origination on a huge win —”an OT thing”. Should be identified if possible.

1. D of P “What happened in your recent win?” for data.

2. Declare if one is in order.

3. Do steps 1, 2 and 3 of the Pgm.

The pc has D of P Interview and declares Mest Universe Release. The pc takes a new OCA.

OCA GRAPH 25.4.72—

LRH COMMENT—

“It’s changing anyway.”

The Sanderson RD is started and continues very well for several sessions.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

There was still charge from the bypassed win and some other points. Did a GF—still hot—and cleared all up.

The one thing she most wants handled is “This Evil Purpose I’m sitting on”, BD 2.0 to 1.8.

Suggest:

1. L&N “What evil purpose has been missed?”

2. R3R Triple.

3. Hav.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done, you’re doing better now.”

The next session goes to pieces. The auditor gets off on a list correction and the pc gets very upset and red tags at the Examiner. The auditor sends the pc to the D of P for a “What did the auditor do” to cool her off.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 31.5.72—

“Same auditor on this pc. They both have to confront it.

I can’t really make it out. Can’t read some of the Admin and I’m not sure what went on. Change of procedures? I don’t know where it came from.

The C/S for the session, 2nd session, doesn’t exist so I guess you were C/Sing in the chair, a grave fault.

This sort of reaction comes from list errors.

Essentially she thought you were DENYING HER AN ITEM.

She’s not up to any of this.

1. R-Factor: I have some questions here to solve the upset. Were you being denied the item? Were earlier wrong lists restimulated? Do you have a withhold? Wouldn’t the auditor listen? Some other upset? You didn’t agree with something? Was your list suppressed and invalidated?

2wc the result E/S and handle.

2. What part of the session could you confront? Repetitive, not 2wc to F/N, VGIs.

3. Havingness.”

This C/S was done to a moderate result but the lists were never really picked up and handled properly. The Exp Dn Pgm was continued but soon the pc was in trouble.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Wow. Seems she’s gone past the point where she was cured and well and has developed a lot of BPC on inval because Dn was continued and she feels it was “complete” some time.

Whole session was getting off BPC on being O/R as a case and protesting further Dianetics.

1. Fly a Rud.

2. Rehab big win in Dianetics recently (Mest Universe Release).

3. Get point where she realized she was no longer ill. Rehab.

4. Declare Exp Dn Completion.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 3.6.72—

“No. Off Exp Dn Lines.

TO CL XII C/S

This pc is having list trouble by reads 2 sessions back. Early list restimmed read. They’re not repaired.

Please have a XII handle her lists, rehab any win and remove from auditing lines.”

The program is started and completed to Step 2. The pc at Exams says, “I had a beautiful session. I feel so good, so good. I feel identified. So me.”

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS—

We’re really hitting right where she wants handling. Handling long-term failed help and somatics. (Note exam.)

She’s really winning!

(I put her on footplates today, she loves them and no more TA hassles or attention on cans.) LRH -—”Great!”

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.”

The next session the WF handling is completed and the LX lists are begun.

The pc says at the Examiner, “Everything is alright. So much gone! Not there any more! Just computing. I wouldn’t have missed coming to Flag for all the World.”

AUDITOR’S COMMENT—

The last exam speaks for itself. She’s doing very well!

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

You should frame it! You’re doing a good job.”

The next session Step 4 of the program is completed and 5 done.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

She feels that there is nothing else she wants handled. We unblocked her ears among other things. She wants to go home and train and start auditing. She felt handled after yesterday’s session.

0. New OCA.

1. D of P Interview.

2. Pending results continue Pgm or Declare Exp Dianetics Complete.

LRH COMMENT—

“Hey a Product!

Very well done!”

Pc declares. Then next day 13.5.72 the Host rushes a note to the C/S.

NOTE FROM HOST TO C/S—

(Pc) has just come to me a little griefy with a headache (after completing her Expanded Dns yesterday).

She says she knows she is PTS. She says she knows it is not “_____” but it may be her CPA (Certified Public Accountant) “_____”

She itsa’d a bit and remembered he sat on the board of the Mental Health Organization in “_____” She started to blow a lot of charge and said she felt it blowing.

*I info’d her of the new PL on PTS and finance. She became VGIs and is going to read it. She then recognized that her business and Franchise started to get into trouble when they took him on and said they knew the Business was PTS to Someone.

I said I’d info the D of P and C/S and get it handled for her. She went off VGIs to read the PL but came back a few seconds later to say the headache had blown—I asked her to get a pc Exam (so there is a record of whether the item F/Ned).

Please get her cleaned up with Ethics/D of P and further sessions on PTS RD if required. HOST

EXAM REPORT AFTER HOST INTERVIEW—

I spotted our CPA as a one dollar a year man._________________________

*FOOTNOTE: HCO PL 12 May 72, “PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE”.

Blew my headache. It affected our Business and I’m sure he is the Why. Feel great.

TA 2.25 Wide F/N.

AUDITOR’S NOTE AND C/S (Also these steps added to the Pgm)—

Her OCA has recovered from its bad dip. She came up to the Host tonight with a terminal she recognized she was PTS to. She feels she’s complete on her Exp Dianetics but she should get this last bit of PTSness cleared up.

0. Work out handling for CPA in “_____” she’s PTS to—with D of P.

1. Fly all ruds triple + overts.

2. PTS Rundown Correction List.

3. “Can’t Have” Rundown as addition to PTS Rundown.

Note: I need more data for Step 3—is an HCO B coming out?

LRH REPLY 13.5.72—

“See attached note.”

*”PTS Steps (Not necessarily in final form).

Select the terminals already run on R3R in the sequence they were run in. 1st one, 2nd one, 3rd one, etc.

Clear ‘Can’t Have’ ‘Couldn’t Have’ as denial of something to someone else. ‘Enforced Have’ as making someone accept what they don’t want. Have the pc get the idea of these with an example or 2.

Run on the SP items a 4 way (each to F/N) bracket.

1. ‘What Can’t Have did (terminal) run on you?’ to F/N.

2. ‘What Can’t Have did you run on (same terminal)?’

3. ‘What did (terminal) force on you you didn’t want?’

4. ‘What did you try to force on (terminal) that he (she, it) didn’t want?’

Each goes to F/N.

This can also be run alternate repetitive:

1.2.1.2. etc to F/N. 3.4.3.4. etc to F/N.

But it may not be cleaned up.

The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny hav and enforce unwanted hav. They also deny do and enforce unwanted do. They also deny be and enforce unwanted be.

A very full RD then would be to start with don’t be must be, go onto don’t do must do, end up with can’t have enforced have.

*A pc has to be told it is experimental as it is not yet in HCO B.

After EACH item handled with the 2 flows can’t and 2 flows enforced OBJECTIVE HAV should be run.

_________________________

*FOOTNOTE: This process and RD is no longer experimental and is covered in HCO B 9 Dec 71 RA, “PTS RUNDOWN”.

This is why we have never before been able to run subjective hav. It collided with SPs, overts and w/hs on them.

Hav alone (4 bracket) should handle without resorting to Be or Do, but in rough cases, Be and Do will have to come before Hav.

End off at once and begin objective Hav if the TA soars or the pc caves m, and send folder to me.

A PTS RD can make a clear if fully carried out, accurate in all steps.”

The pc handles her PTS connection by telexing to have the Accountant fired. The auditor then takes the pc into session to do these further auditing steps.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

The “Can’t Have” Rundown is a roaring success with her. We cleaned up every last bit of PTSness in her environment, according to her. It’s really incredible to see mass blow off people and get brighter.

In the D of P Interview pc wants to give her Business Associate a further R-Factor con-cerning the Accountant which she goes off to (_____) to do. While away doing this thepc pulls in an old somatic.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

She’s got an old backache at (_____) yesterday—which needs handling. She also did a new OCA “over a backache” but there are some interesting changes in the graph. She also is winning with the touch assist from the MO.

1. 2wc to F/N.2. Touch Assist to a Cog.3. Sanderson Rundown per Pgm. (Added.)4. End with havingness.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 17.5.72—

“I tole you and tole you and tole you—when they rollercoaster they’re PTS OR she has been wearing metal. (Shoes have steel in them, belts, garter belts.) (I just found ‘appendicitis’ was a party belt studded with metal!)

**1. Have the pc stand, look her over for metal, question her about metal stays, girdles she wears or has worn. Find what it is that rests exactly in the somatic areas.

Sir, you’re a genius! This is exactly where she was sitting—she blew these somatics she thought were “62 yr old somatics”.

I’ve never seen something work so fast before.

1. Declare Exp Dn Complete.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

This was the first Metalosis session!”

The pc attests Exp Dn Complete and says at the Examiner, “I had the best night’s sleep in a long time. I feel great. Also my eyesight has improved 75%.”

PC’S SUCCESS STORY—

For me Expanded Dianetics is the process that truly enables me to be OT and an active Scientologist. There are no words to really describe the gains I have had. My awareness is up and I have gained that which is necessary to operate truly as an OT.

D of P to inform pc that during his Exp Dns Pgm he is to do no more “confronting”.

1. D of P step above.

2. Clear each word in R3R and on L-3B.

3. Clear R3R commands. Have him give examples. Have him demo E/S and New Beg.

*4. Assess attached PT environment list.

5. Take best reading item, get attitudes and emotions. R3R Triple.

6. Continue attitudes and emotions with reading items, R3R Triple.

LRH COMMENT—

“Pgm and C/S OK.”

The auditor starts the word clearing.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 14.4.72—

Doing fine. Has a bit of a rough time on words. Still a bit fixated on you. Usually only GIs on F/Ns—this will improve. He has had and still has a bit of a sore throat.

1. Touch Assist to a cog.

2. Complete clearing R3R and L-3B words.

3. Assess PT environment buttons (attached). Get emotions and attitudes on best reading.

4. R3R Triple.

5. Havingness.

Put havingness on Pgm before ending each session.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

You’re doing fine. Probably has some overts on me. Not likely to recover until they’re off.

C/S OK.”

The auditor does the C/S and continues the word clearing.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 15.4.72—

Well hey! No wonder. He has M/Us up the kazoo! TA goes low. Overwhelmed on words.

He really dug the Touch Assist and Havingness. And he had better inds. Also gave me a compliment. (He’s usually super critical.)

So no wonder he spun! And has had lots of W/Clearing?!!! I’m pleased with his progress.

_________________________

*FOOTNOTE: PT Environment List is list made up by the auditor of areas in the pc’s environment that may be charged.

1. Touch Assist to cog.

2. Clear word sensation.

3. Complete clearing L-3B and R3R items.

4. Continue Pgm.

LRH COMMENT 16.4.72—

On Auditor’s C/S

“Very well done. There’s something wrong with his WCing. If he bogs we do a WC Corr List.

Ha, I know what it is. He had a WC Corr List over Mis/U wds on the list. Needs verifying but I’ll bet his WCing is out but list won’t detect.”

On separate note

“Very well done. That’s a very bright observation.

Check his folders for the WC Corr List of 25 Jan 72 (not available to me at this hour). I’ll bet anything it F/Ned because he doesn’t understand the words on it. This would make a completion that COULD HAVE BEEN AN ARC BRK NEEDLE ON THE WCCL ASSMT! AND AT EXAMINER!

Complete the list you are working on as per your C/S.

Then look at the 25 Jan session.

At 1A we will do, if this looks like he didn’t really get his WCing corrected, clear WCCL words and assess and correct before we plunge into any more chains at 2 of Pgm.

He’s been audited too much to be so ill. So there’s a case bug—as above.”

The auditor spends the next session clearing up one word and ends with Havingness “Feel that”.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 16.4.72—

Words is really where he is. We went on huge chain 3 1/2 hrs to clear sensation!

7 Feb 72 Red tab declare on WCCL, get re-exam after some M2 and declares.

So his WCing IS BAD—you were so correct.

I would like to change Pgm a bit to clear all words on WCCL and WC C/S 1 —then WCCL—then verify or complete M 1.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 17.4.72—

On Auditor’s C/S

“Very well done. Your original observation found this. He must have been ARC Brk F/Ning on the original actions.”

On separate sheet

“Very well done.

You found the original clue to all this.

So he must have been doing an ARC Brk F/N on earlier WCCLs. This means he’s been run, possibly, over an ARC Brk. Gives him his ‘sad effect’.

Possible Ethics action on the earlier M1 ‘completion’.

So this pc is held down only by words. With tons of auditing, not knowing the words, he’s never been audited!

Means no one ever cleared commands on him. Thus he’s a ‘chronic case’.

This is a classic really of what we’re achieving and how.

1. Clear ARC Brk, carefully.

2. Check for ARC Brk LONG DURATION.

3. Clear word chain.

4. Clear all words on WCCL & WC C/S 1.

5. WCCL.

6. W/Clear M 1 verified as complete.”

The auditor does the C/S successfully. WCing is continued for 7 sessions with good results. However in the next session the pc gets sad and red tabs at the Examiner. Pc statement, “I was kind of uncertain about just which words I didn’t U well enough.”

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 21.4.72—

ARC Brk at exam. Pc in sad effect. Not sure on words (which are M/U) bogging a bit.

I see what’s going wrong here. You’re not WClearing over in-Ruds. And not getting an F/N amongst the words. TA went up on FASTEN. After that (pg 4) he got dopey and you didn’t grab what he’d really not understood.

Also the long haul of this, if no F/Ns, will move him back into IMPLANTS as these contain words, mass and force.

F/N is a sign of RELEASE. But from what? Look up the word. If no Release then no F/N. If no F/N no release.

Your C/S won’t handle because it’s BPC stirred up and that responds to handling.

1. Were there some words you were not sure about last session? 2wc E/S to F/N.

2. Have we by-passed a win? Rehab.

3. Fly all ruds Triple.

4. 2wc Describe your condition to me. E/S to F/N. 5. What have you wanted handled in auditing?

Send folder up with BD statements circled in green. (Red is for R/Ses and Evil Purps and Serv Facs.)”

The auditor does the complete C/S the next session.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT (NO C/S) 22.4.72—

Here is result of your C/S. Lots of reads and some B/Ds.

He really liked it.

LRH COMMENT—

“Well done by Exams.

Good but no C/S. Needs Pgm and C/S.

Danger Condition assigned auditor as I had to bypass last session and being asked to this session again. No Danger Cond Habits please.”

AUDITOR’S PROGRAM 23.4.72—

Has big trouble with words. Words not taken to F/N. Ruds not put in. Has funny indicators on F/Ns.

Hav after each session—Ruds each session.

1. Clear F/N.

2. 2wc “What would have to happen for you to F/N?”

3. Clear backload of words from previous session (that did not F/N).

4. Clear words on WCCL and WC C/S 1.

4a. WCCL and handle.

5. WC M1 (or verify). Add: TRs, auditing, galley.

6. WC 8RR and WCCL to F/N list.

7. Tech Div Primary RD. (Can be done part-time during Exp Dn.)

8. Pgm for Exp Dns.

AUDITOR’S C/S 23.4.72—

I re-programmed him for Exp Dn set-up. Got to get words handled.

He has funny inds sometimes on F/Ns like it’s not great enough for him to have an F/N.

1. Fly all Ruds.

2. Clear F/N.

3. 2wc “What would have to happen for you to F/N?” (Mark all BDs, Fs, R/Ses, etc.)

4. Step 3 Pgm.

5. Step 4 Pgm.

LRH COMMENT—

“Pgm OK and C/S OK.”

The C/S is done and WCing is continued for three sessions. On 26.4.72 in session (on page 10 of the Worksheet) the auditor is clearing the word “confused” and the pc says, “I don’t feel bad about ‘confused’ but don’t feel good about something—word ‘clearing’ that’s what it is.” The auditor clears this word.

Later on page 20 & 21 of the Worksheet the auditor is clearing the word “sent”. The pc says, “I know what it means.” Auditor, “M/U?” Pc, “Nope. Laugh, yeh I don’t know what it means, I try to convince you, laugh.” The auditor continues and clears it.

The 26.4.72 session ends on an F/N and an F/N exam.

The next session again WCing the pc red tabs at Examiner.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 27.4.72—

Pc had a sore throat so ended session and took him in later. Hard going. Pc had considerations how he should feel, how long it should last, how should be done.

But actual bog was ARC Brk with his being considered Ethics and chronic sickie. He’s worried about status and being expelled. Decided he should get status made certain by Chaplain. (Doesn’t get on with MO.)

Since bits of this have come up before I want it handled before I continue auditing him.

Main problem in TA was it was over ARC Brk.

0. Pc to get status verified with Chaplain. When pc satisfied:

1. Fly all ruds.

2. Complete Step 4 of Pgm.

3. Continue Pgm.

LRH COMMENTS AND C/S 28.4.72—

On Auditor’s C/S

“Well Done by Exams.

Didn’t get his Ruds in fully or you’d have made it.”

On separate sheet

“You didn’t get ruds in. Pc was not in comm. You don’t run Ruds any old way and you MUST NOT CLEAR WORDS OVER A SOARING TA.

I just sent down a C/S the other day TO YOU 22 Apr 72 same pc ordering you to get an F/N between words.

On 26 Apr pg 20 & 21 of earlier session words got out of sequence. Pc was actually out rud, protesting session.” (LRH had ringed “I try to convince you, laugh” in green on the worksheet and written “protest”.)

*The cause of all this weird action in the session is on the earliest pg 8 26 April where the ARC Brk got 2 reads and you didn’t reassess.

Pgm outness — Clearing backlog of words was a Pgm error that left us without a cleared WCCL now needed.

The general outness is trying to audit someone on Ethics lines in some way.

*FOOTNOTE: The auditor had assessed ARCU and gotten a sF on both C and U and had indicated U instead of reassessing.

*Your suggestion is correct. To get it handled by someone acting as Chaplain —probably Host.

But there are errors here of an auditing nature. Moving to a new room, pc’s attn. Not catching protest.

0. Chaplain Interview.

1. L- 1 C Recently.

2. WCCL M5. Handle.”

HOST’S REPORT—

I interviewed (______ pc) as requested.

The situation was pretty much all handled by him as he went on his own determinism and spoke to the Chaplain/MO last night after session.

He was concerned that the MO had a worse opinion of his medical history than was in fact the case.

He felt that as the MO had a big say in whether he is offloaded or not—this was an uncool situation.

The MO gave him the R-Factor that it is a combination of bad MO history and no production that gives offload. This brought in his GIs as he felt he was able to produce and hold his own and his status as a SO Member was no longer in danger because of someone else’s opinion.

Says it’s all handled. GIs.

The auditor spends two sessions handling the WCCL. It seems nicely cleaned up so auditor suggests going back to WCing and Pgm. However before the next session the pc reports to the Examiner:

“Sprained my ankle at exercises—scorched my hands on the gravel, going to be hard going up and down stairs,” 4.4 - 4.0 (pc limps out).

Auditor grabs him and gives him a Touch Assist. Pc red tabs at the Examiner (TA 3.5).

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 2.5.72—

Sprained ankle—scraped hand—limping.

I can’t put him on footplates as he has bandage on foot and he can’t hold cans very well in one hand—so he’s a bit false TA now.

Touch Assist went very well.

1. Touch Assist.

2. Hav.

(Repeated later in the day if needed.)

LRH COMMENT 3 May 72—

On Auditor’s C/S

“OK. But this cat is PTS!!!!!!”

On separate sheet

“Proceeding well but:

_________________________

*FOOTNOTE: The Chaplain’s hat is worn by the MO who the pc does not get along with.

Has himself an accident.

He is obviously PTS as he roller coastered.

Add PTS Check to Pgm.

Your C/S of touch assist and Hav is okay.”

The touch assist was given and pc’s foot getting better. The Word Clearing is continued with a touch assist being given each session to a win. The WCing is continued for several sessions. After the session on 7.5.72 the pc comes to the Examiner and says, “Feel alright about that,” 2.5 F/N Normal.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 7.5.72—

Almost done.

1. Fly all Ruds “+ overts Triple” added by LRH.

2. Complete clearing WCCL and 8RR.

3. Hav.

LRH COMMENTS—

“Very well done.

He seemed a bit dull at Exams = Heavy on ruds next session.”

The next session the auditor completes clearing the WCCL and WC C/S 1. The pc is sent to the D of P for a PTS Check. However before he has it an EstO grabs him and does some Product Clearing on him. He goes to the Examiner the next morning and says, “(_____ EstO) did some Product Clearing on me last night. I didn’t feel very good about it. Probably had a misunderstood word,” 2.4 D/N.

That day the PTS Check is done and D/Ns at the Examiner.

This arrives back with the auditor who has to spend two sessions clearing up the botched Product Clearing, and then starts in on clearing up M/Us on the PTS materials.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 17.5.72—

Put Ethics in on him. Saw him reading Science Fiction book when he has “no” time and can’t get through PTS materials. Told him to get through fast and keep Ethics in OR NO AUDITING.

He could wait.

This came when I found him not doing it during his study and auditing hrs.

After completing PTS materials.

1. Fly all ruds.

2. M/U on PTS materials.

3. Fly all ruds on PTS.

4. Complete PTS Check.

LRH COMMENT 18.5.72—

“Very well done.

Now hear this. You did very well getting his Out-Ethics spotted. WITH this you opened the door to a resolution of a sticky case.

He’s no good to man or beast and will get no case gain with his Ethics out. That isn’t all he’s doing (loafing during study).

Now he is on one RD (PTS) and we find another needed. So we can’t switch RDs. So we add it to Pgm right after what we’re doing. Standard Op Procedure.

So redo this Pgm (it’s messy anyway).

Put in 3 May 72 PL by the auditor (has 2 Lists L&N in it) and handle. We should have done 3 May 72 PL before the PTS RD.

Your C/S is okay.”

The auditor continues the clearing of words to do with PTS Check and then completes the PTS Check.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 21.5.72—

All it took was clearing the materials—so he knew what was going on. Then went very well. He began to make a sort of a list so I will be alert for out-lists.

He is not ready for PTS RD. I doubt if I could clear all the words on the L-3B and R3R in 25-50 hrs. So that’s why Prim RD.

Then I’ll get him moving on Exp Dn.

1. Clear all words and do HCO PL 3 May 72. L&N the two lists.

2. Havingness.

AUDITOR’S NEW PROGRAM 21.5.72—

Is PTS. Needs PTS RD but not set up. Still big problem with words.

Is Out-Ethics most of the time.

1. 3 May 72 PL. L&N two lists.

2. Method 1 verified or completed—add: TRs, auditing, galley.

3. Tech Div Primary RD.

4. Pgm on Exp Dns (including PTS RD as soon as set up).

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

Yes (to C/S and Pgm).”

The auditor has trouble with high TA and spends several sessions clearing the list and getting it assessed and F/Ning. The pc is by this time on the Primary RD and the auditor spends time each session clearing up M/Us.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT 2.6.72—

May I have OK for him not to do Prim RD part-time. I end up using session time cleaning up his M/Us.

1. Fly all ruds.

2. Clear L-4B words.

3. 3 May PL.

4. Hav.

Then to Dept 13 for M1. He has been on lines too long with no product in sight, until words straightened out.

LRH COMMENT 2.6.72—

“Very well done.

Finish up 3 May 72 quickly. Then we can tell.

Off Primary RD until 3 May done and M 1 done.

OK. (By auditor’s note re Dept 13.)”

The next three sessions the auditor spends clearing words on L-4B and up to Step 2 of the 3 May PL.

The next session the pc is found to be unsessionable.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 6.6.72—

Gee—it took me 11 mins to find him unsessionable.

He slept 6, layed around 3 and was tired!

I told him 8 hrs tomorrow and sessionable or else.

I am tired of this, he causes me too much Dev-T.

“R-Factor: We are getting your Ethics in as you are in Danger of offload,” added by LRH.

1. Fly all ruds.

2. Complete 3 May PL.

3. Hav.

LRH COMMENT—

“OK. See addition.”

The auditor finishes the 3 May.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT 7.6.72—

3 May PL done.

I want him to get PRD before I do Exp Dns. He is not sick. Words is his main scene.

1. D of P Int. Inform pc before he gets Exp Dns he must do Prim RD. That he will be going to Dept 13 first for WCing. When he has finished Prim RD he can have Exp Dns.

2. To Dept 13. M1 verified or completed.

To date the pc has not resumed his Exp Dn program. No after-intensive graph was given. The above case history shows what may be necessary to get a pc ready for Exp Dn.

TOTAL NO. OF SESSIONS: 33.

TOTAL HOURS IN THE CHAIR: 85 hrs 17 min.

Compiled by:Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

Pc finishes her C/S 1 and the L10 Evil Purposes are checked and turn out “no interest” and PT Environment is started.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT 29.4.72—

She told me a couple of times how she didn’t like running Dns because it was “slow”—but she sure blew a lot of grief charge on what we ran today.

LRH COMMENT—

“VERY WELL DONE.

She is dispersed so has to work fast and frantically.”

PT Environment is completed. Pc has been continually mentioning 25 hrs of Goals Processing she received. 4a is added to the program. Next session auditor completes the rest of the program, most of it turns out “no interest”.

AUDITOR’S C/S AND COMMENT 30.4.72—

We ran out her Goals Processing but it’s not handled yet. She says she can handle anything but that area and she tends to not-is it in and out of session. She also got bored in session—I checked ARC Brks (didn’t check PTP & MWH). Turned out later to be a MWH concerning the fact that the area had not gone yet.

1. 2wc to F/N. 2. Havingness. 3. Get what intention would make one hold onto Goals Processing. 4. Run best reading item R3R Triple. 5. Recheck interest on White Form and LX lists.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S—

“WELL DONE.

(C/S would get her messed up as it’s an outlist situation really an engram but she has attention on it.)

0. L4B Method 5. ‘On your goals list.’ 00. Handle.

Do your C/S.

She is rather critical. More withholds than that, I think. Also get in the who what did he do steps of M W/Hs when you meet a MW/H.”

I don’t know about this one. She’s making gains—they are quite apparent but she just gets bored stiff and dopey during Dianetics. “It’s too slow.” There’s something holding her viewpoint of Dianetics in place. So:

That’s better. The W/S’s however adds a step to Pgm that black mass circling around is what she wanted handled. Should have been a suggest here. Bit of a puzzle how to fit it in. But as it’s now come up we can tackle it directly.

I added it to Pgm.

Your C/S is OK.

This is a classic Ex Dn session situation you’ve just handled.”

Auditor does Method 4 on early words in auditing. The pc goes to the Examiner and says, “It’s like everything is back in place where it belongs, it’s perfect.” Dial F/N VGIs.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

She’s a product. All the remaining stuff she wanted handled blew entirely on clearing up these words.

1. Declare EXP DN PGM complete. 2. Finish PRD.

The pc attested to Exp Dn complete.

SUCCESS STORY 7.5.72

My overall win was a complete free Scientology and Dianetics track which goes back 11 years.

It’s like starting all over again with a lot of know-how. Many, many other wins too. I used to do things thru a screen of somatics and attitudes galore.

All gone.

Understanding restored and much much more.

A 100 thanks to_______(auditor) and the Commodore.

FINAL OCA—

Pc did not take a new OCA at this time.

Note. This is an error as an OCA must be taken prior to a pc attesting Exp Dn.

TOTAL NO. OF SESSIONS: 11.

TOTAL NO. OF HOURS IN THE CHAIR: 19 hrs 25 min.

Compiled by:

Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

*FOOTNOTE: By HCO B 30 June 71, Issue II, Word Clearing Series 8RB (Revised 11 May 72) the list words of M 1 are not cleared before assessment. The words of the commands (WC 1 C/S 1 ) of M 1 may be cleared.

3a. PTS Check (added later). 4. To Exp Dn Program.

EXP DN PROGRAM BY DN SPEC 16.4.72—

0. Havingness—throughout, before and after session. 0a. Clear words: R3R, L-3XD.1. Assess PT Environ buttons, get E, A or S on them. R3R Triple exhaust lists.2. Assess C/S-6 (VIII list)—add: Past Lives, Commands, Chains, “Product RD”, etc. Get Sen, Emotions or Attitudes, R3R Triple, exhaust lists.3. “Emotional Stresses” WF. (Get any treatments, if “Attitude to treatment” reads, and get AES on them [i.e. the treatments]. Likewise “attitudes to illness”.)4. Based on WF bleed it of all emotional charge—all emotions/attitudes on reading areas or Narrative as applicable.5. Then new OCA to check the left side and program as indicated.

PROGRAM STARTED 17.4.72—

The word clearing goes OK when a simple dictionary is used. On the WCCL pc starts to have problems about his post.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 20.4.72—

Has a problem getting free to be audited—caught between product pressure and watch duty. Handled PTP in mid session again.

Assessment of WCCL mainly over still needle, not F/Ning, not reading. Exams was OK. May have been my TR 1 but I thought that was OK.

Also is very heavy on “don’t know so better not say anything” and “if you can’t prove it, keep your mouth shut”. (0.5 BD)

He also has earlier connections to newspapers and a mental hospital where he worked as a nurse’s aide.

Has had “insulin treatment” but not specified if simply for diabetes or for shock purposes.

He should have a thorough PTS Check immediately after M1 Verification is completed.

As he has some protest on doing the WCCL assessment so many times and as the last reads handled were all false or “nothing” reads we may be cleaning cleans on him.

0. Hav to F/N. 0a. 2wc Attention on? to F/N. 1. Find out what he does during an assessment with 2wc to F/N. la. Put in Suppress and Inval “On the list we have been assessing”. 2. Complete C/S of 20.4.72.

Add PTS Check to program after M 1 Verification at 3a.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 22.4.72—

“Very well done.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Major points:

1. He is psychotic by OCA. 2. He is not in session. 3. His background is at mixed practices (one of 7 Resistive Cases).

So reprogram needed.

1. Who would I have to be to audit you? 2wc to F/N. 2. What wouldn’t you mind talking to me about? 3. Define Suppressive Person. Mark any BDs. 4. Have you ever known a Suppressive Person? (Mark BD or F/N Items.) 5. Define a Suppressive thing, get examples, mark any BDs. 6. Have you ever known a Suppressive thing? (Mark BD or F/N Items.) 7. Send to D of P for handling as indicated.”

LRH PROGRAM 22.4.72—

“Not in sess. Low left OCA. Former Nurse’s aide in mental home. Insulin treatment. Not a good case gain. In Ethics trouble often. Foreign language. Lots of Hav.

1. Who’d have to be to audit—What cd you say. 2. 2wc Define suppressive person or thing with examples until he understands it. 3. 2wc (mark BD or F/N Items). Have you known a suppressive person. 4. 2wc Have you known a suppressive thing. 5. D of P PTS Check metered and handle. (He may be suppressive.) 6. Sanderson RD. 7. Intentions of past areas. Scout int and run.”

The auditor does the above C/S and gets good LFBD items. Also an R/S turns on periodically through the session.

He had no more answers but not an F/N on the “Have you ever known” Qs.

1. D of P Check for anything in PT Environment, or other answers on PTS Check. Light touch as he has answered the Q.2. PTS handling (D of P).3. Clear R3R and L-3ExDn words. 4. Sanderson RD.

Doesn’t seem to be SP himself—he has thought of it. Long itsa on “artistic ambitions” as a writer at end of session.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done.

You’re getting him where he lives now.”

The pc has his D of P Interview but no other SP is found. The pc disconnects from three of the SPs found in the session except the Org terminal which is left. In the interview the pc talks about chronic PTP he has had for almost two years about his attention stuck on going to see his parents that he hasn’t seen for five years. The auditor takes him into session but he continues to talk about this problem with the TA rising, to 4.4. The auditor ends off and the pc goes to the Examiner and F/Ns at 3.0. The auditor C/Ses for a C/S 53RRR.

LRH COMMENT 23.4.72—

“Well done by exams.

C/S OK. But something is really out. The C/S 53RRR will find if you ask what the reads are before acting.”

The auditor takes the pc in and clears and assesses the C/S 53RRR. W/H LFBDs, and the auditor begins to handle.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 24.4.72—

Well we got another big chunk. He had been sitting on the discreditable W/H of having been in the hospital (as well as working in it) for a rest cure following nervous collapse as a student! In terror that the SP head nurse would slip something in his food. And since then afraid of what SO would think.

Apparently received only light insulin treatment, not as shock type dosage.

I spent some time looking for an overt of commission in the hospital but the read finally cleared to F/N VGIs on “false”.

1. Forced to go into agreement with psychiatrist on threat of being interned if he spoke out.2. Fear of expulsion for being connected with psychiatrist.3. 3rd flow engrams of torture by ECT (for political reasons) of a girl.

The C/S 53RRR is continued for several sessions until it F/Ns all the way through the list. Next session the auditor starts the Sanderson RD. The pc says he wants “masturbation” handled. The TA goes high so auditor handles with a C/S 53RRR.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 2.5.72—

Ran into another high TA so did C/S 53RRR to F/N list and then did C/S (not complete).

The next morning the pc comes to the Examiner and says, “I have a pain in my neck and I want to get an assist—terrific pain, I could hardly get up this morning.” 3.3 clean BIs. The auditor took him back in to repair the list, and spends 4 hours trying to clean it up. At the end of the day the pc Red tags.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 5.5.72—

Took him in after he BER’d on orig to Exams following list and Ext.

C/S 53RRR and L-4B and corrected the list successfully. Then after dinner TA back up again and not certain of item. L4B and C/S 53RRR and list corr done and list extended and nulled. TA remained high.

His back was giving him considerable pain towards end of session. As I wasn’t getting the list handled and it was getting to be a heavy PTP I ended off and sent him to MO for a touch assist and attention to the knotted muscle.

He now has Red tabbed at Exams and his list, physical PTP and possible Int gone out.

The next session the auditor repairs the list to VGIs and continues the Sanderson RD. Two sessions later the auditor again in trouble with the TA soaring.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Out of the pc’s gradient. No R level where the L&N would hit so it didn’t read and TA climbed.

Overcharged as he puts his TA up in a few seconds with a weird thought like “session should be truthful” and sits on it for an hour.

So he’s overcharged, can’t spot bank and stuck down the track this lifetime.

He has had CCHs I-IV and Op Pro by Dup (to F/N VGIs). But we can undercut this case with:

1. Tone 40 locational CCH 6. 2. CCH 7 (8c) “Keep it from going away”. 3. CCH 8 “Hold it still”. 4. CCH 9 “Make it a little more solid”.5. Control TRIO (Notice that____and get the idea of having it, permitting it to continue, making it disappear.)

This is a program change to get him out of his stuck bank points (Swedish Army, hospital, etc) and under control as he is not cutting it and I am over-restimulating him too easily with too many hours to just get the TA down.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 9 May 72—

“Well done.

You’re going off Exp Dn. This pc is w/hing heavily for fear he will damage something or do something evil. See Psychosis HCO B. That is why TA soars on a thought.

He’s just messed up by Evil Intentions not handled.

His session pgming is a bit ragged. He’s a TA battle because he isn’t leveling with you.

Note that Sanderson RD is not complete. You would be breaking into an existing action.

You are getting desperate because the pc is in a desperate state. That’s the time to go easy, not make a huge change.

This pc is already too long on our lines without a completion.

If he’s not telling you his thoughts he’s not in session. You don’t have his confidence.

1. 2wc What are you afraid you might tell me? to F/N. Note the BD and F/N items for future reference.1a. Hav.*2. Verify intention found and R3R Triple.3. 2wc What have you always wanted handled? 4. Hav.”

LRH PROGRAM 9.5.72—

“Pc not really in session. Probably a PT Out-Ethics case. Middle of Sanderson RD. Beware of out lists. High TA needs to be nudged with ‘What have you thought of you haven’t told me’.

The auditor does the C/S as far as verifying the pc’s item. Pc says item that gave previous session is cool but gives the item as “To have something to do rather than eating carrots or picking my teeth or my nose,” LFBD F/N.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

One of us is mad, I think.

Beginning of session 2 div BD on masturbation.

2wc BD 2 divs on wanting to get the show on the road (for LRH) before time runs out.

On verifying the list 1 div BD on being bored and the matter is handled and feels free about it.

Then he comes up with a 0.5 BD and F/N Item which sounds like Alice’s Bad Dream.

I ended off because I wasn’t prepared to run the item R3R. My impression of this item was covert blow. As far as I can see it has to be.

Looks like a simple case of false TA with pc slackening cans. Do you watch a pc’s hands? They sometimes slacken cans.

If you keep nagging him he’ll get desperate.

1. False TA HCO B with all additions. Let’s see if you can do all the checks.1a. Do HiLo if no joy in 1.2. He wants masturbation handled. That’s where it began to hang up.

L&N Who or what would masturbate? Item O/W.

(Item O/W is: What has item done What has item w/h alternate repetitive.)

If no blow, L&N What intention would (____item) have. R3R intention.”

The next session the auditor has again high TA troubles.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

False TA checklist done. Put him on foot plates as there was almost a div of TA difference when he first tried them. As it later climbed back up it was probably just his shoes being taken off.

HiLo Assessed 3 times, last time to the pc. No reads. Per his statements he was getting the commands. As if he is below the reality of W/Hing.

States he has had a personality change recently and is “more exterior to himself”.

This is the second time I have failed to complete a C/S. I did not want to go into another action with the TA that high. He said he was feeling great not tired. (His sleep is irregular due to QM duties.)

The pattern is usually the TA doesn’t start to climb until the first 20 minutes of the session or so. We should be able to handle this way:

1. 2wc to F/N. 2. Complete LRH C/S of 12.5.72.

I don’t know where I am erring on this guy, but I’ll get him through it.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 13.5.72—

“Oh well. With this many session errors you won’t make it.

ANYBODY CAN AUDIT AN EASY PC. AN AUDITOR’S FLAWS SHOW UP GLARINGLY ONLY ON ROUGH PCS.

As a Dn Spec will be auditing a lot of rough pcs he has to be flawless in TRs, metering and tech.

The errors are obvious enough.

1. You don’t begin a major action or an assessment list until you get an F/N. This is called set up. One has to know how to talk a TA down to do a HiLo. This holds true unless Int is out and that can be tested at once by simply checking Went In? Exterior? at which you get a BD if it’s what’s wrong and you just handle it. If it’s not Int you check lists. If not lists you check w/hs.

Actually I can’t see how you’d get much of a read with a TA that high. Nevertheless a C/S 53RRR works even with a high TA.

2. You tried to run an ARC Brk with a high TA. You checked it. You NEVER touch ARC Brks on a High TA as High TA is not caused by ARC Brks. And ARC Brks WILL NOT get a TA down and seriously messes up a pc if you try it.

3. You are possibly assessing with a lilt—an upswing of tone as in a question. Assessments are done as a statement —a down tone. [See footnote p. 229]

4. You have to have the pc’s attention. He has to be in session, this means interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.

5. To be in session a pc has to have confidence in his auditor and an auditor with overts on the pc or doubts or who makes funny cracks about the pc’s items SHOWS IT IN SESSION and there goes confidence. Because ARC is gone.

6. An auditor’s tiny failures in TRs begin a grating on the pc. This throws a pc out of session.

7. The commonest cause of no item on an assessed list of prepared items is meter reading failure. The meter is placed wrongly so the auditor can’t see it, pc and paper in ONE glance. This is the usual reason for ‘no items’ on a prepared list. Eyesight can be a factor.

8. An auditor has to have IMPINGEMENT on a pc to assess. The XIIs run into this all the time. Internes have ‘done’ a GF40XRR. The pc gets to the XII. The XII reassesses and has a whole big parade of reads. The lower class auditor just didn’t impinge (or missed the lot).

There are NO pcs alive such as you are presenting here in this folder. They do not exist.

Whenever in the past, we have thought one did we checked it out and there was no such animal.

There was an auditor whose TRs were poor, who couldn’t or didn’t read a meter and who had overts on the pc.

The pc in question each time responded easily to standard auditing.

You keep not doing C/Ses because you have not done the basic things.

Anyone can run a Cadillac pc. It takes a real smooth auditor to handle a Vintage Model T Ford.

These are not harsh words. I must not let you get the idea that you can goof and then blame the pc. You’ll just go on losing if I do let it slide.

Did you really check ALL of the False TA items or did you just shrug it off and grab footplates? And are you using a meter that works or a busted one.

D of P. What does the auditor do, really and truly.

We’ll check this. Then we’ll use the murder routine if all other points are verified.”

The auditor is crammed. The pc has a D of P Interview and three points arise. 1. Auditor’s TR 2 is out, 2. Cleaning Cleans and getting into protest, and 3. Pc now ready for deeper running.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 14.5.72—

D of P Interview done. The loose grip was spotted in the TA checklist. I used the footplates because 0.8 div difference at the time and pc happier with them.

If D of P’s opinion is correct my TR 2 has been short. So I’ll pick it up, and be careful with the metering and TRs, and cans.

I have gotten off all the overts I know of off on this and other pcs. They include rough TRs and mis-metering.

1. 2wc to F/N. 2. L&N What is the Intention of me? BD F/N Item. 3. R3R on Item Triple.

This is to follow through the H Standard using actually a XII RD and adapting it to Exp Dn.”

The next session the pc comes in with the TA at 3.1. The auditor two-way comms the pc to an F/N. Then when the above L&N is checked the TA flies to 4.6 and there it sticks even though the auditor tried to talk it down again.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S—

Hit the ditch.

Not cans alone this time as I have checked those very carefully. Also he BDs to F/N at Exams on the same sized cans.

I am missing something on him which he has suppressed.

A list of areas from this session producing TA is attached.

D/N and R/S on “me” and on “despatch”.

I took care to see he knew I had gotten what he said, several times. He knew I had gotten what he said.

TA BDed on “someone could take money from bookstore” and started climbing when I asked him if he had. Said he never thought of doing it and he hadn’t.

Whatever it wasn’t it was something I did, as the TA was actually high at 4.9 even when checking can grip.

The fact that he BDs and F/Ns at Examiner means to me that he is W/Hing or protesting something from me but not at Examiner.

It could still be TR 2. Something must be sitting there unacked.

1. D of P “In your last session what did the auditor do?”

2. D of P “In your last session were you protesting anything? Was anything unacknowledged?”3. “Is there anything you haven’t told?” (note read).

Check cans first.

LRH COMMENTS AND C/S 17.5.72—

“This is what C/Ses are for.

Since your new skill acquired in Cramming you have not run a C/S 53.

Also you challenged him with your 2wc Q. It isn’t a 2wc Q. What have you been up to is an invalidative auditing Q. How have you been or some social Q is 2wc to F/N.

You are acting suspiciously. He feels it. He of course has overts all over the track. You are restimming them by being suspicious. You are not running O/W but appear to be trying to, so processes are mixing. You should be running standard Dn on him.

Session probably started on an F/N (cold can). You gave it no time to warm.

1. C/S Series 53RC. 2. Handle. 3. Continue Sanderson RD.

And don’t act like a detective! An auditor is a detective only when doing O/W on a pc that won’t give.”

The auditor assesses the C/S 53RC and handles “don’t like it”. On the next assessment Int reads and so an Int Corr List is assessed. This does not read but the pc is very happy.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

Do what Ron says!

Pc ext, VVVGIs. The Int Corr List was clean but the area was what was hanging it up.

He’s had an “Int RD” in 1970 reported as “shallow didn’t bite” by auditor.

0. 2wc “How do you feel about going into things?” to F/N. 1. If all ok, L&N “Intention of ‘me’.” 2. R3R Triple Item.

LRH COMMENT—

“Very well done!”

The auditor does the C/S. The L&N item is “to be at cause” and this is R3R Tripled.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

Doing fine. L&N went great—hot item.

The R3R is rough and very shallow and he tends to go into long situational descriptions on Step 7. Really needs a Dn C/S 1 on the R3R steps with demos.

0. R-Factor “We’re going to go over the steps of R3R.” 1. Go over each step of R3R with “apples” having the pc do demos of the chain and what happens. 2. Dummy run R3R with apples.2a. Rud if no F/N. 3. 2wc “What do you really want handled on your case?” (Clear words backwards and “serious question” R-Factor.) 4. L&N Triple Intention + R3R.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 21.5.72—

“Well done by Exams.

This Dianetic R3R is too rough. 1-9 A-B look strange.

The C/S is invalidative of this pc and it still shows to the pc. Long long yak is out TR 2 and defensive.

1. L-1C In your auditing with me has there been. 2. Havingness.

Then another auditor as I am tired of writing repair Pgms on this pc.”

If Why finding been done on him before do it like C/S Series 78. When this is done he can go on. He’s just about to get taken off auditing lines so is Out-Ethics. Should have been a Product way back.

Then your C/S the next day.”

The 3 May PL was eventually done to a good result, but then the pc was sent to serve in an area of the world that to date has not got Exp Dianetics. The Case as such remains incomplete. A second OCA was never done prior to leaving so there is no record of the change that was brought about by the auditing as outlined in this BTB.

I did not do 2 of your C/S as I’ve cleared WCCL. I’m not sure what I did in admin that showed that.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 31.5.72—

“Well done.

You finished the temporary repair caused by an area upset.

You’re cleaning cleans with this C/S. The situation ended with restoring (old boss) to Post. This wd be a Q&A C/S.

DON’T VEER OFF PGMS. PGMS MEAN SOMETHING.

1. 2wc to F/N. 2. Class VIII List RD. 3. Hav.

To D of P for PTS Int.”

AUDITOR’S NOTE TO COMMODORE 1.6.72—

Pc unsessionable 2 days, due to missions. He has been good abt informing Tech Services.

I don’t think he is trying to get out of session.

I thought you should know this.

He’ll get session tomorrow.

LRH COMMENT—

“OK. Maybe he hit an EP. He’s doing great or was when I last had contact.”

The auditor continues with the Pgm. On step 10, PTS Interview, done by the auditor in session, no PTS person is found. The auditor goes on to the PTS RD, does 2 S&Ds and runs the items Triple R3R, Ruds and overts. However pc goes to the Examiner and his TA had dropped to 1.6.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 2.6.72—

Red Tab. I don’t see a session error it went great.

1. 2wc “Is there anything in your last session you did not feel right about”. Handle as needed. 2. Cont PTS RD.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 3.6.72—

“Both items are inflow. Could be on same list.

You had it 1st Item on list. Usually the case.

There may be a listing error. You should have grabbed pc at Examiner. He’s on a hot spot on post.

1. R-Factor: We have to correct the last session. Assess: Out Ruds Wrong List Session Error Post Upset Wrong Item An overt to put it on list Auditor overwhelmed you Item was missed Another Item has yet to be found +Did both these Items belong on same list (It is 3 S&Ds not 2 ) +Probably it’s the last one 2. Handle the above, L-1C if auditor, L4B if list. 3. C/S 53RC—Handle. 4. Hav.”

The auditor does the C/S.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S 4.6.72—

Nothing was wrong. Maybe Examiner.

He’s doing great!

PTS RD DONE.

1. D of P Disconnect. 2. Can’t Hav RD. 3. Hav.

LRH PROGRAM 4.6.72—

“All right. We have him where he lives.

He has mainly Org terminals as his SPs. So by flow study that makes him what? Accounts for earlier Aide failures.

1. Auditor’s C/S 4 June 72 complete Can’t Have RD.2. 3 May 72 PL. Preface in the last couple of years.3. Find all Ev Purps ever run or found even if D/Led (L-10 L-10M W/Sheets etc). Note 2 Apr Pgm. Look at W/Sheets to see if any gotten off.4. R3R Triple on those that read.5. L&N Triple for Ev Purps per L-10 list actions ‘Multiple Flow’ if not done.5a. Pc not had it so do L-10 Multiple (added after the next session).6. R3R Triple on 5a. (We MUST get this guy straight. Could cost us a million if we flub it as he is handling Orgs!)7. PTS Corr List. Any additional terms + Can’t Have.8. Metalosis.9. OCA & Int.”

The auditor does the C/S and the 2 L&N lists of 3 May PL. The pc is F/N at the end of session but TA 1.5 at Examiner. Auditor has re-exam with different Examiner and pc says, “The session was fantastic and thought it was great. Handled s’thing that’s been bugging me for years.” TA 2.3 Wide F/N.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 4.6.72—

He loved the C/S, 3 May PL especially.

I don’t know what the scene is with (_______Examiner). Every time pc has been red-tab (_______) was Examiner.

I checked, nothing wrong, sent him for new exam with different Examiner.

1. 2wc to F/N.2. Continue with LRH Pgm 4 June 72.3. Hav.

Note: He’s never had L-10 of any sort. I found Ev Purp on an Int Corr List. He is Va.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 5.6.72—

“C/S not correct. Pc never had L-l 0 Multiple or Single. (LRH alters Pgm and adds step 5a to it.)

Not well done because of admin. I can’t read the W/Ses. The auditor does not put down what the pc was talking about. So I can’t work it out to C/S it.

I can’t make this session out at all. Can’t see what the pc was saying. Doesn’t make any sense at all.

Clarifying words is not the problem here. What incident did the pc run? What was it all about? That’s what a C/S has to know. The pc cd be jumping chains, anything, as there’s no data.

*FOOTNOTE: This Product Pgm is an Experimental Pgm which in fact never was run on this pc. It remains experimental and has not been released.

The above program is done as far as completing Method One which the pc attests. Later LRH sends a note to the Tech Sec.

LRH NOTE 22.4.72—

“Pc is to be run on Exp Dn after Study RD. (Also R3R on goals, etc from L10 will make him sane.)”

EVAL BY EXP DN AUDITOR 23.4.72—

SITUATION

1. Has just had M 1 verified + C/S 53RRR and handled.2. He is programmed for Exp Dn after Product RD Exp.3. There is an outstanding order from you that he do Exp Dn after Study RD.

DATA

Not audited since 13.4.72 (10 days). Audited without FES.

Now lined up and waiting for Experimental Product RD (postulate level processing) which should be handled after Exp Dn per Tape Exp Dn 1.

HANDLING

1. That his program be revised to the two programs I have written for the case.2. That I do the Study RD assess and handle (any L&N would be done by Exp Dn Team Lead Auditor) and the remaining program steps.3. That steps 1 and 2 of the set-up be done while FES is being drawn up to prevent delay as they are both necessary and as C/S 53RRR has just been handled.

The auditor assesses the Study Corr List and on the question IQ. “Have you ever cheated on an exam?” the question gets an LF and on the assessment from that point the TA rises to 4.4. The auditor checked O/R and got a response so rehabbed an earlier study release.

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

Cleared Study Corr List and handled ARC Bk.

Ran into soaring TA on assessment, small reads.

Rehabbed the O/R and did Hav to F/N.

Now needs to have the Study Corr List assessed over in-ruds.

1. All ruds to F/N.2. R-Factor on reassessing Study Corr List—reassess and handle.3. Clear any words on R3R + L3ExDn.

1. 2wc to F/N.2. R-Factor on question IQ, there was a question ‘Have you ever cheated on an exam?’ (Watch for read.) 2wc to F/N.3. Fly all ruds. But if no F/N on 2 above assess a C/S 53RRR, and return to me.4. R-Factor: We have to get an F/Ning List on study. Reassess whole list.5. Handle.”

The SCL is handled to F/N list and the pc attests. The words are cleared on R3R and the L-3ExDn and the Exp Dn Pgm is started.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 2.5.72—

Doing well. Two points:

1. Possible error was I did “Emotions” connected to one area, R3R to F/N list, then took up next area to F/N list on Emotions without checking for any remaining attitudes in first area.

2. He is somewhat out of session but is very willing to “supply” VGIs— They’re there but feels like he is thinking about what to say to please auditor. Very co-operative. It’s an unchanging characteristic. Probably just needs good continued auditing where he is at. Example is when listing emotions connected to (____wife’s name) he had to work on it.

So it will come out in the wash as long as we keep getting him where he lives

To make up for your ‘no okay to L&N’ you are avoiding standard Exp Dn.

This guy has INTENTIONS. He also has OUT RUDS. He also isn’t in session.

So you’ll just have to match up to the pc’s needs and handle. It isn’t attitudes you want. It’s intentions.”

D OF P INTERVIEW—

(Not done on meter.)

1. What did the auditor do?

(Hesitation) Auditor audited me on R3R. I didn’t know anything was out on R3R. (Hesitation.) I think if anything, perhaps the question in regard to environment maybe my attention wasn’t directed to the right place. Thought it was a good session. (Pc “ahs” and “you knows” a lot.)

Q on PT Environment I believe I gave what was wanted. That’s the only point, the original question.

(Hesitation) Only point (comm lag) I think of. I just don’t know if that’s where the charge is. Don’t believe that’s where the charge is. (Referring to session.) Charge started earlier than Thursday. He had TRs in. Ran me. Made sure I erased it.

(Hesitation) Maybe the question should have been checked. He probably did. I don’t recall. He audited me very well. The only thing it could be is the question.

2. How do you feel about your case?

Want to get more into it. (Hesitation) And handle whatever needs handling and do whatever I’m supposed to do. That’s how I feel about my case.

And oh! I feel I have to take more responsibility and get more charge off my case that’s all. I feel that the actions that I have are very thoroughly in, couldn’t be shifted by a crane, (laugh) you know, like, I feel a tank couldn’t take me off my purpose. Feel I can get from A to B. Want to get more straight to help Scientology. No big thing.

Pc also mentioned before leaving he needed lots of rest for long sessions.

LRH COMMENT AND C/S 4.5.72—

“Lousiest and almost the least informative D of P Interview seen for some time.

Leaves a C/S digging his wits for data.

But apparently pc has something to handle.

Also he was run on an unreading question.

Also he is in an ARC Bk (sounds sad) or a failed purpose (tired). (Needs lots of sleep to be audited.)

You can’t audit over a possible ARC Br and a failed purpose is heavy on the case.

This person is also Out-Ethics.

0. R-Factor—you were run on an unreading item.00. C/S 53RRR handle.1. Triple Ruds + Overts LD.2. L&N, check for read. What purpose has failed? to BD F/N item. R3R Triple.3. 2wc What do you want handled? Mark all BDs and F/Ns.”

3. After each L&N + R3R, L&N F-2 Intention—”What intention does another have towards you connected with ( item)”. Then F-3 “What intention do others have towards others connected with (_____item)”. These all done should care for Dynamic 3.

“Very well done. May be unnecessary to go on. This C/S is okay. That may be it. C/S ok.”

In the next session the pc gives some items he wants handled. At the end the pc says, “To be able to control, control towards survival and optimum conditions.” (F/N VGIs.) “That is really where my head is at, proper control.” (F/N VGIs IND.)

AUDITOR’S COMMENT AND C/S—

Not complete, I guess. He has several areas he wants handled.

I. The body: heat, reaction to hot temperatures, nervous for no reason, lower back muscles, lower part of body, pains in body.

He is noted in the Case Progress sheet as having had the PTS RD in 71, but I see no record of the session. He has not had it, I am sure. Can be checked with the pc.

The first thing to handle would be the PTS RD. Pre-Flag folders and LA folders not here.

0. Check if he has had it.1. Get him to tell you any past S&D items, if any.2. If none do 3 S&Ds.3. R3R Triple, Triple Ruds and overts.4. 2wc “Who he has known this life who has worried or troubled him”. Check for known before this lifetime. R3R Triple Ruds + overts.5. 2wc “Been after this LT” if known before, R3R Triple + Ruds + overts.6. Places and planets known before this LT. Handle as above.7. Assess PTS Correction List and handle to F/N list.

LRH COMMENT 11 May 72—

“I won’t give you any grade for this session as it’s a goof in Admin, C/Sing and Pgming.

You must stay on Pgms and complete RDs. (You have decided now to go into another RD leaving Sanderson RD incomplete.)

You ONLY run items in pc’s wording. Do not change wording. (You changed his wording to ‘Failed Control’ which he did NOT say.)

You must mark BDs plainly when doing one of these 2wcs for things to handle. Not all TA actions are marked so one is not sure what read. I am sure the needle was active. Yet is not noted.

Having found where his attn is fixated you must now follow through.

But he did not answer the auditing question. He didn’t tell you what he wanted handled. He told you what he wanted to achieve. And you can’t run that! It would be trying to as-is ambition, which wouldn’t erase and would down curve him and wreck him.

When you start an RD you finish it.

Now I’m dead ended as a C/S. I have no real reads marked. The pc didn’t really tell you. So I can’t say what to R3R. It is NOT ‘failed control’. The pc never said a word about it! You put an item of your own on the pc AND THAT IS A LISTING CRIME.

Also what’s this ‘E/S’ doing on pg 5 mixed into 2wc for things to handle. You must not mix up actions.

The report sheet is a false report. And a less experienced C/S would have been thrown by it.

The part of this which I have been alerted by, in this, and other sessions, is a lack of program command. This IS a Rundown you are doing. It does have steps. You do do them in sequence. One must NOT start one thing, break off and start another.

All these are very basic auditing flaws.

Reviewing this it appears we did not end off on the Pgm underway but are 2 or 3 sessions deep on AN UNPROGRAMMED ACTION!

In other words, we are running a case now without a program WHICH IS ILLEGAL AS HELL.

Apparently things have been done not ticked off on the last 2 programs.

This case isn’t going A to B by a long way.

Get checked out on this in cramming.

Pgm the case. Only you know what you’ve done here. Then I’ll okay it. You have begun the Sanderson RD. Get checked out on it. Get it completed.

Then a PTS Int and verification.

Let’s finish this case up!”

RE-PROGRAM BY EXP DN SPEC 11.5.72—

1. Complete Sanderson RD. Handle all reading items from last 2wc.

2. If any further H. Std areas show up, to be handled first.

3. PTS Check + RD if indicated.

4. OCA + Program (if necessary).

The auditor does a series of sessions and completes the Sanderson RD.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 12.5.72—

Went great. No reading answers to 2wc, has at present time nothing he can think of he wants handled.

(c) Go through the exchanges. What does he exchange with his own 1st (spirit). 1--------------> 1 What does it exchange with him. 1<-------------- 1(d) Keep this up to huge cog.”

The auditor does the C/S to a tremendous win.

AUDITOR’S COMMENTS AND C/S 21.5.72—

Now ready to fire for real.

Valence shift, cogs on all Dynamics, responsibility level soaring, and I have never seen him so present. Now that he’s here he can go.

0. Declare Exch by Dyn RD Completed.1. OK to fire.

LRH COMMENT 21.5.72—

“ Very well done.

It might interest you to know that I brought him back from (_____) just to set him up to rem and run Exchange by Dyn—step 2 of my last session C/S.

Your C/S is correct.”

AUDITOR NOTE 21.5.72—

(__________pc) has completed his auditing and his OCA is good.

He looks very good also.

Request ok for him to fire to (__________).

LRH COMMENT 21.5.72—

“OK. Wonderful job.”

PC’S SUCCESS STORY—

Expanded Dianetics. Well, what I did was expand immensely by doing Expanded Dianetics and erasing formidable chains which once shackled me to reactive areas—now totally blown. Especial acknowledgement to my auditor and to LRH who charted the newly discovered “Terra Incognita”.

OCA GRAPH 19.5.72—

TOTAL NO. OF SESSIONS: 24.

TOTAL HOURS IN THE CHAIR: 67 hrs 09 min.

Compiled by: Flag Dn Spec Team for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

Since the original lectures on Expanded Dianetics and Case Histories were released several HCO Bs were issued under my name which I did not authorize. These have been cancelled.

I thought I’d better cover the developments since the original materials and clear up any questions or conflicts that may have arisen over the unauthorized HCO Bs.

EXPANDED DIANETICS PROGRAMMING

Expanded Dianetics programming is not rote but each programme is laid out for that individual pc taking him from his current state to a shiny product.

The programme is worked out from data gotten by FES, OCA, Chart of Human Evaluation and D of P Interviews.

The product of an Ex Dn complete pc is visible by OCA, Chart of Human Evaluation, and pc satisfaction in having handled what he wanted handled.

Endless Ex Dn to no product occurs only when the C/S violates the basics of Ex Dn programming as covered in my tape lectures and the Case Histories, when the pc is run on actions that he doesn’t need and aren’t reading or when the pc was not set up for Ex Dn in the first place.

EXPANDED DIANETICS SET-UPS

Usually a C/S Series 53RF and a list correction are needed set-up actions if they haven’t been done. A thorough C/S-l and full word clearing are vital.

A Drug RD must be done or completed before Ex Dn is done or it will fail. This includes Objectives. You can’t do Ex Dn until Drugs are all handled.

TROUBLE ON ENGRAMS

The pc who cannot run engrams has misunderstoods on the commands and terms of R3R and Dianetics, or it’s drugs. The pc will be able to run drugs because that’s what he’s stuck in. He’ll run those automatically as long as you’ve done the necessary Word Clearing.

Pcs who won’t go backtrack are druggies or in recent shock of having died. This is handled by a thorough Drug RD and if necessary the usual Dianetic backtrack remedies As and Es double-assessed. Ss and Ps could be checked as well.

LATER EX DN RUNDOWNS

Class VIII C/S-6 list is useful in running out past bad auditing. It is fully covered on Tape 1. Other Class VIII lists are not used as you won’t get anywhere running AEIs from a significance.

Intentions in AEI Treble Assessments are run in order of read. Interest is not checked. As intentions exist on all 3 flows you could list for the intentions on the other 2 flows after you have listed the intentions connected with and run them R3R Triple. You can only list and run intentions connected with a terminal or mass or somatic never a significance.

The R3R commands are: F-1 ”Locate an incident of another causing you to have the intention_____.” F-2 “Locate an incident of you causing another to have the intention_____.” F-3 “Locate an incident of others causing others to have the intention ______.”

Good Intentions are never run. Never. The cure for a pc who is run on a good intention is a C/S Series 53RF. The cure for the auditor is to fully define the words: good, worthy, positive, pro-survival, evil, bad, unworthy, negative and contra-survival. Then have him re-study the related materials. If it recurs, get him audited on a 3 May PL and Ex Dn.

R3R all E. Purps culled from the folder is done as a first action in Ex Dn. Subsequent E. Purps brought up in sessions are noted and R3R’d later on in the programme before any PTS RD is done.

These E. Purps have to be verified as to wording and checked for read before running, but not interest.

Considerable charge can be bypassed if E. Purps are missed so this action is thoroughly done.

R/S Handling, also called the Responsibility RD, is done as OCA right-hand side handling. A list of all R/Sing statements is made then each taken up. The idea is an R/S will occur in connection with a terminal which will read when checked, and that’s what you want to run. The R/Sing statement itself will often mention a terminal. If not the auditor can do a brief TWC to find out the terminal connected with the statement.

Once the terminal is obtained the auditor lists (L & N) for the E. Purp F-l, 2 & 3 R3R Triple on each after it’s listed.

If no terminal can be found the auditor would have to L & N for the intention of someone who would (R/S statement).

The Wants Handled Rundown is shown in Cases B, C and F. The important points of the RD are to run it as a “wants to get rid of”, not a “wants to achieve” and to complete each thing the pc wants handled before going on.

Handling of each thing the pc wants handled is dictated by what the “thing” is. A somatic is run R3R Triple. The intention connected with it can also be run. An intention is run R3R Triple. If it’s a terminal, L & N for the intention connected with it and run it. You can also L & N and run the intentions on the other 2 flows. If it’s a condition L & N W/W would have it then list for and run that terminal’s intention. If it’s a doingness L & N for the intention of someone who would do that and run it.

Additional handling could be done such as PSEAIs double-assessed R3R Triple, handling it as a problem by finding and running out the prior confusion or tracing it back to the earlier problem it is a solution to and running that R3R Triple. Difficulties on this RD stem from not getting the thing the pc really wants handled which will read very well and run like a bomb, or errors in the L & N or R3R or out ethics holding the condition in place.

The Multiple-Flow E. Purp Rundown is a very high-powered action which must be precisely done. Its use is covered in C/S Series 22 and Case C. It consists of F-l: L & N “What Evil Impulse have others had toward you?” R3R Triple. F-2: L & N “What Evil Impulse have you had toward others?” R3R Triple. F-3: L & N “What Evil Impulse have others had toward others?” R3R Triple.

SUMMARY

An Ex Dn programme is designed for an individual. C/Sing and auditing are done to achieve a product.

When you’re paralleling the mind the meter will be reading like mad, the pc will be wildly interested and the results will follow big and fast.

With this broad change in Ex Dn I recommend that you re-listen to the Ex Dn tapes, review DMSMH and The Original Thesis as well as the ‘63 Time Track and R3R materials and re-study the Case Histories working out why each C/S and pgm was done. Better yet do a thorough Ex Dn C/S Course.

I’m counting on you to really apply these materials and expect to see lots of good results.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1974RemimeoExpanded Dianetics Series 23(Ref. XDn Series 9)

XDN CASE B

Further data on XDn Series 9.

On further data the failure of this case was due to:

1. PTS to friend of wife who was violently invalidative. He roller coastered = PTS. The PTS scene should have been handled prior to auditing but was not known or suspected at the time.

2. This case had been a drug addict and was married to a drug addict who had been a prostitute and who persuaded him back on drugs. The drug rundown “no interest items” should have been run and he should have been cleaned up on drugs before beginning XDn. It has been proven out time and again that when a very full and complete drug rundown is not done, pcs do not succeed with any other type of auditing including Expanded Dianetics.

FURTHER NOTES

Further research has shown that headaches are almost invariably an Exteriorization-Interiorization problem. This research case should have had his Ext-Int handled fully.

These items added to the research program, before any others, would have brought success:

With the issuance of HCOB 17 March 1974, “TWC Checksheets—TWC, Using Wrong Questions”, certain Ex Dn procedures that were TWC became L&N. The commands were issued.

PT ENVIRONMENT

The listing question for PT Environment is “What terminals make up your present time environment?” (LRH). The question is listed and the item is handled by getting AEIs connected with it or about it and running them R3R Triple or Quad, to an F/Ning AEI assessment.

That completes PT Environment handling.

Where a pc has had PT Environment done by 2WC and later bogs, the C/S would note a possible out list and could have it corrected if it’s out.

INTENTIONS

In doing an AEI Treble Assessment Intentions must be listed, L&N. This also follows from the 17 March 74 HCO B.

The listing question would be “What intention is connected with______?”

An intention should not be listed from a significance but only from a terminal or mass. Where the item being listed is a significance the terminal must be found by L&N and then the intention of that terminal listed.

The procedure on AEIs where Intentions has the LARGEST READ would be to L&N for the intention, R3R Triple or Quad, then go on to As or Es or reassess.

It is highly unlikely that Intentions will continue to read on reassessment of AEIs. If this does happen suspect a wrong list and verify or correct.

It could read on an Intention on another flow, but then Intentions can be listed Triple or Quad.

QUAD EX DN

When catching up unrun Flow 0s on an Ex Dn completion it is usual to Quad the R3R items, leaving the L&N questions alone. Doing Flow 0 L&Ns where Flow 1, 2 and 3 were previously listed and run R3 R, as with multiple flow Intentions or Evil Purposes, is not necessary on an Ex Dn completion and could bypass charge by overrunning the Grade.

Where Intentions are listed Quad the Flow 0 question would be “What intention have you had towards yourself about_____?”

PTS RD

The Flow 0 commands on the PTS RD would be as follows:

R3R: “Locate a time when you did something to yourself because of________.”

ARC BREAKS: “Did you have an ARC Break with yourself about________?”

PROBLEMS: “Did you give yourself a problem about________?”

WITHHOLDS: “Did you withhold anything from yourself about_________?”

OVERTS: “Did you commit an overt on yourself about_________?”

CAN’T HAVE/ENFORCED HAVE:

1. “What can’t have did you run on yourself because of_________?”

2. “What did you try to force on yourself because of________that you didn’t want?”

INTEGRITY PROCESSING is that processing which increases a person’s personal integrity and trust in himself and others by freeing him of past overts, withholds and missed withholds.

DEFINITION: Overt—A harmful or contra-survival act Precisely, it is an act of commission or omission that harms the greater number of dynamics.

DEFINITION: Withhold—An undisclosed contra-survival act; a no action after the fact of action, in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral or ethical code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.

DEFINITION: Missed Withhold—An undisclosed contra-survival act which has been restimulated by another but not disclosed. This is a withhold which another person nearly found out about, leaving the person with the withhold in a state of wondering whether his hidden deed is known or not

INTEGRITY is defined as:

1. The condition of having no part or element taken away or wanting; undivided or unbroken state; wholeness.

2. The condition of not being marred or violated; unimpaired or uncorrupted condition; soundness.

3. Soundness or moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, especially in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity.

This relates to ETHICS which is defined as “the principles of right and wrong conduct and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others”.

Thus we see that a person who acts against his own moral codes and the mores of the group violates his integrity and is said to be out-ethics.

Such acts are called overts. A person having committed an overt and then withholding the fact of that overt, and withholding himself from committing further overts, will individuate from the group. The group itself will then lose integrity as it becomes divided and lacks wholeness.

Integrity Processing is therefore that processing which enables a person, within the reality of his own moral codes and those of the group, to reveal his overts so he no longer requires to withhold and so enhances his own integrity and that of the group.

DEVELOPMENT

In the ear/y ‘60s LRH developed the technology known as Sec Checking. As issued it was used for two purposes: as a general processing tool to clean up a pc’s overts and withholds and as a security tool to detect out-ethics persons and security risks

In 1970 this technology was refined and issued under the name of Confessionals.

In 1972 a complete update was done of basic O/W tech and the earlier procedures of Sec Checking and Confessionals. A new technology emerged—Integrity Processing.

Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed as to its workability and most optimum usage by LRH and certain revisions have been made.

USAGE

Integrity Processing has two uses. Its basic use is as a tool for pc case gain, increase in responsibility and case progress. As such it belongs at Exp Grade II on the Grade Chart You can’t expect a pc with unhandled Drugs, who can’t communicate because others don’t really exist (Grade 0), and who is caved in by problems (Grade I) that he hasn’t even cognited on, to have enough responsibility to answer up on O/Ws (Grade II). Therefore, Integ as a full RD goes at Exp Grade II. It is usually programmed to be done at or towards the end of the Grade and a full battery of Integ lists are used. It is not a mandatory Grade II Exp process, but is recommended.

The second use of Integrity Processing is as an ethics or security measure. It is used here as part of staff requirements or when a security clearance is needed. As such it has no case prerequisites and is not subject to such things as the Drug RD rule as it is not being used for pc case gain. Only one or at most two Integ lists would be used.

When used as an ethics or security measure, Integ can be done as auditing in a session (and is therefore subject to the Auditor’s Code), or can be done as a straight security action, not “in session” In the case of the latter, the person must be informed that he isn’t being audited. The technical procedure in either case would be the same.

It is noted that use of Integ as a non-session security measure or in the case of severe out-ethics is rare, and nothing here condones misuse or abuse of Integrity Processing as a security or ethics action. Such misuse would be itself subject to immediate and severe Ethics action as it would constitute an extreme betrayal of trust

HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE—RELIGIOUS CONFESSION

The need for a person to be able to morally cleanse himself by confession of sins has long been recognized in religion.

The Buddhist monk 2,500 years ago was permitted to confess and seek expiation for “acts of censure”. The penalty for failure to confess was loss of the rights and privileges of a monk. This was enforcement of the natural law that he who commits actions against the codes or mores of the group separates himself from that group.

The Bible, in the Books of James and John, calls for the confession of sins.

Early Christian handling of confession was largely concerned with disciplinary aspects. The sinner had to wear sackcloth, make his bed in ashes, and fast. This went on for a time proportionate to the gravity of the offence, sometimes for years.

Certain sins were previously considered too serious for forgiveness and therefore not open to confession, but a gradual leniency developed as in the case of Calixtus, Bishop of Rome 217-222, who decided to admit adulterers to exomologesis (Greek for public confession).

In the 4th Century at Rome and Constantinople we hear of “penitentiaries”— priests appointed to act for the Bishop in hearing the confession of sins and deciding whether public discipline was necessary.

Due to some misuse of public confession, individual private confession became more prominent in the 5th Century.

In 1215 the Council of the Lateran ruled that everyone must make confession at least once a year before his parish priest.

In Confession as now administered in Christian Churches the disciplinary penance is often little more than nominal, stress being laid rather on the fullness of the confession.

Thus for at least 2,500 years confession has played an important role in religious practice.

Throughout the centuries two points of question have arisen which led to some unpopularity of confession. One was the possible misuse of information disclosed in public confession, hence the development of private confession before an authorized person whose code of conduct prevented misuse. The other was the infliction of disciplinary action as atonement for the sins confessed. But the latter goes beyond the realm of personal morals and ethics into justice. Confession itself, and the need for some form of confession has not been in question.

With Integrity Processing Scientology follows in the tradition of religion. This processing enables the individual to confess to overts without duress. It is done with a qualified Auditor bound by the Auditor’s Code. Disciplinary action forms no part of the processing.

The technology by which Integrity Processing is delivered is new. It is not the same as any earlier technology either in Scientology or other religion. It does however follow in the longstanding tradition of religion in providing a means for the individual to admit to and take responsibility for transgression against the mores of the group and so regain a spiritual and moral integrity.

Integrity Processing must be done only by a well trained auditor, skilled in TRs, basic auditing and metering, who can make a prepared list read, and who has been fully checked out and drilled on these techniques.

As an auditing action it is done in model session with Rudiments in.

Every reading question of an Integrity Processing Form is F/Ned. The actual form question must be taken to F/N, not some other question.

Here is the basic procedure for Integrity Processing:

1. Set up the room, chairs, table, etc., as you would for any auditing session with all admin to hand, worksheet paper, Integ Form you will use, etc.

2. Make sure your pc’s hands are not too dry or moist, the cans are the correct size and the pc knows how to hold them. Ref. False TA HCO Bs.

3. Start the session and fly a Rud if no F/N. If TA high or low do not try to fly a Rud but do a C/S Series 53RJ, assess and handle. If you are not trained in doing a C/S Series 53, end off for C/S instruction.

4. Put in any needed R-Factor on doing Integrity Processing.

5. Clear the procedure and the use of the buttons “suppress” and “false” etc. If necessary as an example run a non-significant question to demonstrate the procedure (e.g. Have you ever eaten an apple?).

6. Take up the first question and clear the words backwards, then the full command noting any read while clearing, which is valid. See BTB 2 May 72R, “Clearing Commands”, and HCO B 28 Feb 71, C/S Series 24, “Metering Reading Items”. Then, as needed, groove in the question further by asking for the time period the question would cover, the activities and people that would be involved, etc. This will steer the pc to the area and bring it into view.

7. With good TR 1 give the pc the first question, keeping an eye on the meter and noting any instant read. Even the smallest change of characteristic is checked in Integrity Processing and that question taken up if it develops into an “SF”, “F”, “LF” or “LFBD”.

8. Take up each reading question getting the who, what, when and where of every overt, going earlier similar to F/N. Get specifics, not general or vague answers. If the pc gives off another’s overt ask him if he ever did something like that. You want what the pc has done.

9. TAKE THE ORIGINAL READING QUESTION TO F/N. Not some other question. Always repeat the original question as part of the earlier similar command to keep the pc on that question.

10. If the question does not read and does not F/N put in Suppress on the question (and if necessary Invalidate, Abandoned, Not-Is, etc.) asking, “On the question______has anything been suppressed?” and noting any instant read. If Suppress (or one of the other buttons read) has read it means the read has transferred from the question to the button, so take up the question as in 8 above to F/N. If there is no read on the buttons the question should just F/N) After the question is taken to F/N there is no need to then check Suppress. Just go on to the next question.

11. If the pc gets critical realize you have missed a withhold and pull the MWH.

12. If an R/S occurs note it large and clear on the worksheets and then circle it in red after session with the statement or question on which it occurred. Note the fact on the Auditor Report Form and Program Sheet with session date and W/S page.

13. If a reading question does not go to F/N and bogs or the TA goes high, take up an L1 RA (Integ Repair List), assess and handle per instructions.

14. EXAMINER. All Integrity Processing sessions must be followed immediately by a standard Pc Examination.

15. On any Bad Exam Report (non-F/N, BIs or non-optimum statement) after an Integ session, or on any pc who gets sick or upset or does not do well or has a high or low TA, give an L1 RA as the next action.

The 24 Hour Red Tag Rule must be strictly enforced.

In the case of a pc requiring an L1 RA the Case Supervisor would also look for evidence of questions F/Ned on something else, unflat questions, or withholds gotten off more than once.

A poor or comm lag TR 2, hidden from the view of the C/S, can also mess up a pc on Integ as it invalidates his answers and makes him feel he hasn’t gotten it off. If suspected this could be checked by D of P Interview or pc to Exams: “What did the auditor do?”

16. The Integrity Form is complete when all questions on the Form have been handled as above and all reading questions taken to an F/N on that question.

SUMMARY

If this procedure is followed and the Integrity Processing done with good TRs and metering the pc will get great results and regain abilities.

Originally reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

Revised & Reissued by CS—4

Approved by Commodore’s Staff Aides and the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

This is the standard correction/repair list for O/W actions such as Confessionals, Integrity Processing, O/W Write-ups, O/W Meter Checks and Sec Checks.

In Integrity Processing this list is used in the event of a BER after an Integ session, if the pc gets sick or upset or falls on his head, or if an Integ session bogs.

This action is a 24 HOUR REPAIR PRIORITY.

The list is assessed Method 5 and all reading items fully handled to F/N per the instructions given.

Prefix the assessment with a time limiter (e.g. “In this session”, “In that Integrity Processing”, etc.).

PRECLEAR: DATE:

AUDITOR: TA:

0. WAS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE METER OR __________ CANS? False TA handling.1. OUT INT. __________ Int RD Correction List or Int RD, if Went In or Go In read.2. LIST ERROR. __________ L4BR and handle.3. WERE YOU TIRED OR HUNGRY? __________ 2wc E/S to F/N.4. HAD YOU RECENTLY TAKEN DRUGS MEDICINE______ ALCOHOL______? __________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Note for C/S.5. DID YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK? __________ ARCU, CDEINR E/S to F/N.6. DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM? __________ 2wc E/S to F/N.7. HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? __________ Pull it getting who nearly found out, etc. E/S to F/N.8. HAD YOU TOLD ALL? __________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Indicate it if so.9. DID YOU HAVE TO GET THE SAME W/Hs OFF MORE THAN ONCE? __________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

(The data in this Bulletin has been takenfrom HCO B 10 July 1964. It is useful inIntegrity Processing.)

ARC BREAKS

The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is “cleaning cleans” whether or not one is using a meter. The pc who really has more to tell doesn’t ARC Break when the Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and eventually give it up.

On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the Auditor.

“Have you told all?” prevents cleaning a clean. On the unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter you get a nice fall if it’s true that all is told.

“Have I not found out about something?” prevents leaving an overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read.

A pc’s protest against a question will also be visible in an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the Auditor won’t accept the answer that that’s all. On a meter, protest of a question falls on being asked for: “Is this question being protested?”

There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by:

1. Demanding more than is there or2. Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc upset with the Auditor.

WHY OVERTS WORK

Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action.

Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing anything at all. The “best” remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. “If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever.” Thus we have the “lazy”, inactive person.

Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness.

Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it does. In some unexpected ways.

However, there is also an inversion (a turnabout) where the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the criminal who can’t act really but can only re-act and is without any self direction. This is why punishment does not cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the individual is driven below withholding or any recognition of any action. A thief’s hands stole the jewel, the thief was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own hands. Criminals are very sick people physically.

So there is a level below withholding that an Auditor should be alert to in some pcs, for these “have no withholds” and “have done nothing”. All of which, seen through their eyes, is true. They are merely saying “I cannot restrain myself” and “I have not willed myself to do what I have done”.

The road out for such a case is the same as that for any other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels above hold also for such cases. But don’t be anxious to see a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned “done” that this person knows he or she has done may be “ate breakfast”. Don’t disdain such answers in Level II particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers.

There is another type of case in all this, just one more to end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but “seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me”.

This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their reaction to a question about what they’ve done is to try to find out what they did that earned all those motivators. That, of course, isn’t running the process and the Auditor should be alert for it and stop it when it happens.

This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess. You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for it if it will only explain it.

On such cases the same approach as given works, but one should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the pc didn’t commit.

Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They should get calmer under processing of course, but the false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On a meter one simply checks for “Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?” Or “Have you told me any untruths?”

The observation and meter guides given in this section are used during a session when they apply but not systematically such as after every pc answer. These observations and meter guides are used always at the end of every session on the pcs to whom they apply.

[The 5 December 1974 reissue of HCO B 10 July 1964, which the above HCO B cancels, was taken verbatim from HCO B 10 July 1964.]

B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N

10 DECEMBER 1972Reissued 12 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 7

FUNDAMENTALS

The most fundamental thing to know about Integrity Processing is that a case with withholds will not clear. And the next most fundamental element to know is that: A CASE WITH WITHHOLDS WILL NOT CLEAR. Perhaps, if this is repeated loud enough and long enough, not only Preclears, but perhaps even Auditors will realize that this is an absolute, unavoidable truth, one which can not be overlooked or neglected at any time, under any circumstances.

First of all, what is a withhold? A withhold is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.

Because a withhold is a no action or a no motion after doingness, it naturally hangs up in time and floats in time due to the actions or the overts which preceded the no action or no motion of the withhold. The reactive mind is, therefore, the combined withholds stocked up which the individual has against groups from which he feels that he is individuated but from which he has not separated due to the fact that he has these withholds in his bank and also all the combined agreements toward survival of all these groups, from which he is not separate, and which he uses reactively to solve problems now without inspection.

Example: The individual belonged at some time to the Holy Fighters. One of the mores of this group was that all should be destroyed who do not accept the Word. The Holy Fighters went out on a punitive expedition against a neighboring tribe who would not accept the Word, but accepted some other belief. There was a great battle with much killing; however, during the battle, the individual took pity upon a helpless child and did not kill him, but took the child off the field of battle, gave him food and drink, and left him, returning, himself, to the battle.

After the battle was successfully won, the Holy Fighters had their usual service during which all spoke of how they had killed all non-believers. Our individual withheld from the group that he had not only failed to kill, but had saved the life of a non-believer. Thus we have the no action of the withhold after the overt or action of saving the child, all of which added up to a transgression against the mores of the Holy Fighters.

Because of such similar transgressions, the individual finally individuated from the group of Holy Fighters and became a member of the Board of Directors of the Society for Kindness to Humans, which itself had its own agreements to survival and with which the individual agreed; however, when difficulties or problems arose, the individual instead of treating all with kindness tended to covertly try to destroy all who would not accept the tenets of kindness. So he reactively was solving the problems of the Society of Kindness with a survival mores of the Holy Fighters. Due to all his transgressions and withholds of his destructive impulses while a member of the Society for Kindness, he finally individuated from this group.

Now he is a member of Anti-Emotions, Incorporated, but he finds that he can’t rule out all his emotions, but tends to be destructive and kind at the same time. So he is still solving problems not only with the mores of the Holy Fighters, but with those of the Society for Kindness to Humans. And so it goes.

Processing this individual we will find that he has all these withholds of overts against the Holy Fighters, the Society for Kindness to Humans, and Anti-Emotions, Incorporated. After we have pulled all these overts, he will truly be separate from these groups and no longer reactively use their survival mechanisms as solutions to problems.

Further the action of withholding is one point where the Preclear does what the reactive mind does. He withholds his own overts of transgressions against the moral code of a group in order to avoid punishment, thusly enhance his own survival, and he withholds himself from the group finally in an effort to avoid committing further overts. So just as the reactive mind contains all past survival agreements which are used to solve problems threatening the survival of the individual, so does the individual decide to withhold transgressions, in order to survive himself, and withholds himself from groups to avoid committing overts.

Withholding and surviving occur at the same time. So the communication bridge between the Preclear and the reactive mind is the withhold.

The pulling of overts which have been withheld then is the first step towards getting the Preclear to take control of the reactive mind. The more withholds he gives up, the more the old survival mechanisms of the reactive mind are destroyed.

Further as a withhold of an overt creates a further overt act of not-know on the group with which one is co-acting toward survival along an agreed upon moral code, so we are running off all the ignorance created for others by an individual which results in ignorance to himself. In this fashion, we are processing the individual up toward Native State or Knowingness.

Therefore, in doing Integrity Processing on a Preclear, you are really attacking the whole basis of the reactive mind. It is an activity which the Auditor should earnestly and effectively engage upon. In doing this the Auditor always assumes that the Preclear can remember his overts and can overwhelm the reactive mind. Just as with the CCHs so with Processing Checks, any objections raised by the Preclear as regards Integrity Processing are only a confusion being thrown up by the reactive mind, but the individual is really trying to look for what is there despite the reactive mind’s doing this. This is why any failure to pull an overt is considered a crime against the Preclear. The Auditor in failing to pull an overt has given the reactive mind a win and the Preclear a failure, and has further given the Preclear another overt against the group he is now associated with, namely, that of Scientology, because he has succeeded in withholding from it.

So in Integrity Processing the Auditor must get the Preclear to answer the question without developing meter-dependency. This creates confidence that the Auditor and the Preclear are really working together to overwhelm the reactive mind.

If the meter gives an instant read to the question then the Auditor uses the E-Meter to assist the Preclear in pulling all further overts and takes it earlier similar to get an F/N ON THE QUESTION BEING ASKED.

A stable datum as regards this is that if the question reacts, there are withholds there or not all about a particular withhold was pulled. Never allow a Preclear to persuade you that it is only already pulled withholds which are still reacting. A withhold pulled will not cause a question to still react; it can only be that not all about the withhold was pulled or that there are further undisclosed withholds on that question, or it is a false read (withhold of nothing) in which case the question will F/N on false.

DO NOT LEAVE AN INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTION UNTIL THE AUDITOR, THE PRECLEAR, THE REACTIVE MIND, AND THE E-METER ARE IN

ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING MORE ON A PARTICULAR QUESTION. THIS WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE EP OF F/N COG VGIs ON THE QUESTION.

Remember the E-Meter is not bound by the Auditor’s Code. If it reacts on a question, then the Auditor must take that question to full EP with an F/N. A question, having once read, is NOT nulled to a no-read. It is audited to an F/N. Obtaining a read and taking the read to F/N depends on good Auditor presence and excellence of TRs, Basic Auditing and Metering.

A Processing Check question must never be left without F/Ning. If the Preclear’s intensive is terminating, you must complete that question no matter how many extra hours you have to put in on the Preclear. Do not end session without carrying the question you are working on to EP. Any failure to pull an overt is a crime against that Preclear.

Eliminate all “unkind thought” questions in Integrity Processing. Use “done anything to” type questions. Unkind thoughts are merely tags telling you that the Preclear has actually done something. Unkind thoughts are merely a mechanism of lessening the overt.

In pulling overts, be careful that you do not allow the Preclear to give you his justifications for having committed it. In allowing him to give you motivators or “reasons why” you are allowing him to lessen the overt.

You are only interested in what the Preclear has done, not what he has heard that others have done. So never allow a Preclear to get off withholds to you about others, except in the case where he has been an accessory to a criminal act.

“Other people’s overts” are handled by asking the Preclear, “Have you ever done anything like that yourself?”

Remember that your duty as an Auditor is to simply employ your skill to obtain a greater decency, ability and integrity on the part of others. You do this by performing well your function of clearing the meter and getting off all overts and withholds. An Auditor is not an enforcer of public morals. If an Auditor tries to make a Preclear guilty, he is violating Clause 15 of the Auditor’s Code, which says: “Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices”. Punishment is an old practice which is not part of our activities in Scientology. Audit against the reality of the Preclear and his moral code and do not try to make him guilty. The value of any withhold is only the value the Preclear puts on it.

As a case improves, his responsibility level will increase, and if his responsibility level is increasing he will get off further, new withholds. If an Auditor is not getting new withholds coming off a Preclear, he had better look for a gross error in his auditing. He either is disinterested and unwilling to help the Preclear, or he is technically unskillful on his TRs, Basic Auditing and the E-Meter, or he does not have the Preclear in session or he has withholds himself. Only an Auditor with withholds will fail to pull them on others.

The number of withholds a Preclear has available at any given time depends upon those that are available at that given time. To clarify this point, assume that all Preclears have the same set number of withholds. Well, the number available within the realm of the Preclear’s present state of reality and responsibility will naturally vary. Preclears with a high reality and responsibility level will have more withholds available for pulling than Preclears with a low reality and responsibility level. This is why it is so important that Processing Checks be continued throughout auditing. His reality and responsibility level will increase throughout processing bringing to light many new overts. If these are not pulled, the Preclear will be forced into unintentionally withholding them and his case will bog down and not progress.

There are prepared Integrity Processing Forms to assist you in pulling withholds. In using these, an Auditor must never, never omit a question on any of these, but he can add questions to them. Then there are specialized Integrity Processing Forms tailored to fit the professional or present activities of the Preclear, and special forms to cover the transgressions of the Preclear against the moral code of any group with which he has co-acted. On the latter, as a person in one lifetime only has belonged to many different groups, you can see the tremendous possibility of Integrity Processing applied to the moral code of all groups on a whole track basis. Particular attention must be paid to the present group with whom he is currently co-acting, namely Scientology. This is why it is important to do the last two pages* of the Basic Integrity Processing Form and others specifically related to the subject of Scientology as applicable on all Scientologists first, because in the first place he is expecting something to help him against which he has overts and to that degree these overts are overts against himself as they will, if not pulled, prevent him from being helped, and in the second place overts against current groups are most important, then overts committed in this lifetime, and then overts committed on the track, the reason being that he is still connected with these current groups and with this lifetime.

Integrity Processing is a most fruitful source of cognition, because you are pulling off the Preclear’s not-knows on the Third Dynamic, which have kept others in ignorance and himself in stupidity. Besides this, you tremendously increase the Preclear’s ability to communicate. And on top of all this you make a Preclear much easier to audit. And if all his withholds are pulled, he can be cleared.

(Compiled from a Briefing to 3rd Mate and4th Mate Flag given by L. RON HUBBARD.)

HCO is primarily interested in JUSTICE.

The method of justice practiced in the 17th and 18th Centuries was to catch the offenders and hang them, thus keeping the countryside “quiet”.

Although useful as a method of quieting things down, however, it doesn’t do people any good to be hung! You will find the remedy expressed in this rule:

WHEN YOU GIVE INTEGRITY PROCESSING TO A PERSON WITHOUT FINDING THE EARLIER BASIC, YOU HANG THEM.

If you can’t chase back an Integrity Processing question to an F/N you are going to get continuous Ethics trouble from that person from then on until it is remedied.

When you give a guy Integrity Processing and it doesn’t produce anything and the needle is clean you should indicate that the Integrity Processing was unnecessary. You will probably get an F/N.

HCO’s interest in someone is normally in what is going on, what is he up to NOW. So one tends to omit to ask how come this guy has been committing overts for the past two-and-a-half years—the same ones—and it is still going on? Back in that earlier zone is one hell of an overt, continuous overts against Scientology or LRH. So what is it? You should trace it back and you could find a dilly!

It’s the EARLIEST item available on that chain that will get the F/N. And remember that overts of Omission are always preceded by overts of Commission. So you should ask yourself, “How come all these overts of omission?” There’s an earlier overt of commission, you can be sure.

This gives us another rule:

IF YOU CANNOT F/N A QUESTION, YOU HAVEN’T GOT IT.

Now it could be the buttons are out (invalidate, protest, action unnecessary). Did you know you can beef up a TA (send it up high) by doing an unnecessary action? It acts somewhat like forcing a wrong item on a pc. It puts him on a protest, a rejection and an effort to stop the action. That is where a lot of the unpopularity of earlier techniques stems from.

Of the rudiments ARC Break, problem, withhold, Integrity Processing specializes in overts and withholds. So the full panorama of Integrity Processing buttons is Ruds plus False, Suppress, Invalidate, Evaluate, Protest, Unnecessary. So if the TA goes up during Integrity Processing you should check buttons. If it doesn’t handle rapidly and easily revert to the L 1RA (Integ Repair List).

IF YOU CAN’T GET AN F/N ON INTEGRITY PROCESSING AND HAVE TO END SESSION YOU MUST HAVE A LINE TO QUAL THAT CLEANS IT UP WITHIN 24 HOURS.

Every time an Integrity Processing action won’t fly it has got to be a 24-hour urgent repair. The Integrity Processing Repair List consists of the ruds and buttons.

People ARC Break with the physical universe, with fellow men, feel wronged in some way and have to take it out on somebody, and so commit the overt. But the somebody they attack is not the source of the upset. They misidentify the source. If their think was straight they would be able to see what the score was and have no charge on it.

An overt therefore is preceded by an ARC Break, and you will find an ARC Break is the result of a problem.

So each time you don’t take a question to F/N you run up against this. This gives another way for them to get unpopular. But if it didn’t F/N, you also know it was necessary to give the person Integrity Processing!

If you give a person Integrity Processing and you see a trail of catastrophes in that person’s wake afterwards you know it didn’t fly. Similarly a person who makes huge overts out of every little action, which is in essence self-invalidation, has behind that somewhere a huge overt—big enough to set the police of several galaxies after them !

If it doesn’t F/N you haven’t got it!

THE E-METER AND THE CRIMINAL

The joker in all this is that the E-Meter reads on Reality. So you can have a guy who reads on none of your questions, but you find out the next day he had done exactly what you asked him. Yet it didn’t read! A real criminal just doesn’t read on having killed his grandmother in cold blood five minutes before the Processing. Even if he admits it it doesn’t read! But a real criminal won’t clear and won’t F/N. Occasionally they will R/S.

You have to handle it on a gradient of reality. “Why wasn’t that an overt?” is one way you could try. He would at first be very surprised at the very thought of it being an overt. But you could get a stream of justifications off. Another way is to magnify the overt. You can use that on a “no-overt” case.

The Tech of it belongs in the field of auditing.

Anytime Integrity Processing is done the session reports must go into the pc folder otherwise the C/S can make an error in C/Sing because of the omitted data.

One does not do Integrity Processing in the middle of other auditing rundowns. The action therefore requires C/S clearance.

HCO AND CASE GAIN(See HCO PL 20 July 1970,Cases and Morale of Staff”)

The percentage of people who have case gain will be proportional to the level of morale in your Org. So it is of interest to HCO to ask the C/S how many no-case-gain cases he has (Pile 4), trace them down and isolate them. The names of those not doing well (Piles 2 and 3) should also be known and the numbers so you can make sure the greater percentage is getting good case gain.

HCO can get trouble stemming from lack of staff case progress. For instance you find an Exec giving excuses for not doing his job. It can be due to a no-case-gain under him enturbulating seniors and associates. They in turn, not recognizing him as the source of the enturbulation, buy the stops and the “can’t be dones” and find some other excuse as to why not to do their job. Recognize that when someone dumps his hat on you he has overts, man!

An Executive instead of reporting that people don’t want to work in his division should be asking, “How come they don’t want to work in the division?”

Things will get better to the degree that such cases producing stops and “can’ts” have a line for them to be handled on.

Begin a campaign to get all these cases winning.

If there is any query as to which of the four categories of case folders (per HCO PL 20 July 70) a person belongs on, it goes on the one lower. For instance a category, Pile 2, queried as to status immediately becomes Pile 3.

Pile 4 cases are given Integrity Processing. Such processing is however not limited to such cases.

It is extremely valuable processing to raise the cause level of staff, students and others.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1972RREVISED & REISSUED 1 NOVEMBER 1974RemimeoCANCELSBTB OF 13 DECEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 10R

INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONSMUST BE F/Ned

The main danger of Integrity Processing is not probing a person’s past but failing to do so thoroughly.

When you leave an Integrity Processing question “live” and go on to the next one, you set up a nasty situation that will have repercussions. The person may not immediately react. But the least that will happen is that he will be more difficult to audit in the future, and will go out of session more easily. More violently, a pc who has had an Integrity Processing question left unflat may leave the session and do himself or Scientology considerable mischief.

About the most unkind thing you could do to a person would be to leave an Integrity Processing question unflat and go on to the next one. Or to fail to obtain an F/N on withholds in the rudiments and go on with the session.

One girl, being audited, was left unflat on a withhold question. The Auditor blithely went on to the next question. The girl went out after session, and told everyone she knew the most vicious lies she could create about the immoral conduct of Scientologists. She wrote a stack of letters to people she knew out of town, telling gruesome tales of sexual orgies. An alert Scientologist heard the rumors, rapidly traced them back, got hold of the girl, sat her down and checked auditing and found the unflat withhold question. The withhold? Sexual misdemeanors. Once that was pulled, the girl hastily raced about correcting all her previous efforts to discredit.

A man had been a stalled case for about a year. He was violent to audit. The special question was finally asked, “What withhold question was left unflat on you?” It was found and handled. After that his case progressed again.

The mechanisms of this are many. The reactions of the pc are many. The summation of it is, when an Integrity Processing question is left unflat on a pc and thereafter ignored, the consequences are numerous.

THE REMEDY

The prevention of Integrity Processing being left unflat is easily accomplished:

1. Develop excellent TRs and Basic Auditing.2. Know the E-Meter.3. Work only with an approved E-Meter.4. Know the various bulletins on Integrity Processing.5. Get off your own withholds so that you won’t avoid those in others.6. Apply correct Integrity Processing procedure and handle each reading question to an honest F/N on that question.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 DECEMBER 1972RREVISED 12 FEBRUARY 1973REISSUED 1 NOVEMBER 1974(Only change is signature.)Remimeo

Integrity Processing Series 11R

GENERALITIES WON’T DO

The most efficient way to upset a pc is to leave an Integrity Processing question unflat. This is remedied by taking each reading question to an F/N on the question.

The best way to “miss” an Integrity Processing question is to let the pc indulge in generalities or “I thought ....”

A withhold given as “Oh, I got mad at them lots of times,” should be pulled down to when and where and the first time “you got mad” and finally, “What did you do to them just before that?” Then earlier similar if no F/N.

The pc who withholds somebody else’s withholds and gives them as answers is a card. But he isn’t helped when the auditor lets him do it.

Situation: You ask the pc for a withhold about Joe. The pc who says, “I heard that Joe . . . ,” should be asked right there, “What have you done to Joe? You. Just you.” And it turns out he stole Joe’s last blonde. But if the auditor had let this pc go on and on about how the pc had heard how Joe was this or that, the session would have gone on and on and the Tone Arm up and up.

We have pcs who use “withholds” to spread all manner of lies. We ask this pc, “Have you ever done anything to the Org?” The pc says, “Well, I’m withholding that I heard . . . ,” or the pc says, “Well, I thought some bitter thoughts about the Org.” Or the pc says, “I was critical of the Org when . . . ,” and we don’t sail in and get WHAT THE PC DID, we can comfortably stretch a 5-minute item to a session or two.

If the pc “heard” and the pc “thought” and the pc “said” in answer to an Integrity Processing question, the pc’s reactive bank is really saying, “I’ve got a crashing big withhold and if I can keep on fooling around by giving critical thoughts, rumours, and what others did, you’ll never get it.” And if he gets away with it, the auditor has missed a withhold question.

We only want to know what the pc did, when he did it, what was the first time he did it and what he did just before that, and we’ll nail it every time.

THE IRRESPONSIBLE PC

If you want to get withholds off an “irresponsible pc” you sometimes can’t ask what the pc did or withheld and get a meter reaction.

This problem has bugged us for some time; I finally got very bright and realized that no matter whether the pc thought it was a crime or not, he or she will answer up on “don’t know” versions as follows:

Situation: “What have you done to your husband?” Pc’s answer, “Nothing bad.” E-Meter reaction, nul. Now we know this pc, through our noticing she is critical of her husband, has overts on him. But she can take no responsibility for her own acts.

But she can take responsibility for his not knowing. She is making certain of that.

So we ask, “What have you done that your husband doesn’t know about?”

And it takes an hour for her to spill it all, the quantity is so great. For the question releases the floodgates. The Meter bangs around.

And with these withholds off, her responsibility comes up and she can take responsibility on the items.

This applies to any zone or area or terminal of Integrity Processing.

Situation: We are getting a lot of “I thought”, “I heard”, “They said”, “They did” in answer to a question. We take the terminal or terminals involved and put them in this blank:

“What have you done that ______(doesn’t) (don’t) know about?”

And we can get the major overts that lay under the blanket of “How bad everyone is but me.”

This prevents you missing an Integrity Processing question. It’s a bad crime to do so. This will shorten the labour involved in getting every question flat.

And if your pc is withholdy you can insert this “Have I missed an Integrity Processing question on you?” while doing the processing.

Always clear up what was missed.

A pc can be very upset by reason of a missed Integrity Processing question. Keep them going up, not down.

I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge.

I don’t appeal to reason. Only to faith at the moment. When you have a reality on this, nothing will shake it and you’ll no longer fail cases or fail in life. But, at the moment, it may not seem reasonable. So just try it, do it well and day will dawn at last.

What are these natterings, upsets, ARC Breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds. If I could just teach you that and get you to get a good reality on that in your own auditing, your activities would become smooth beyond belief.

________

It is true that ARC Breaks, present time problems and withholds all keep a session from occurring. And we must watch them and clear them.

But behind all these is another button, applicable to each, which resolves each one. And that button is the restimulated but missed or partially missed withhold.

________

Life itself has imposed this button on us.

If you know about people or are supposed to know about people, then these people expect, unreasonably, that you know them through and through.

Real knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds! That, horribly enough, is the high tide of knowledge for the man in the street. If you know his withholds, if you know his crimes and acts, then you are smart. If you know his future you are moderately wise. And so we are persuaded toward mind reading and fortune telling.

All wisdom has this trap for those who would be wise.

Egocentric man believes all wisdom is wound up in knowing his misdemeanors.

IF any wise man represents himself as wise and fails to discover what a person has done, that person goes into an antagonism or other misemotion toward the wise man. So they hang those who restimulate and yet who do not find out about their withholds.

This is an incredible piece of craziness. But it is observably true.

This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts.

A good auditor can understand this. A bad one will stay afraid of it and won’t use it.

________

“Have I missed a withhold on you?” can be used in Integrity Processing if the preclear gets upset or critical during session.

________

Any ARC Broken pc should be asked, “What withhold have I missed on you?” Or, “What have I failed to find out about you?” Or, “What should I have known about you?”

________

An Integrity Processing Specialist who cannot read a meter is dangerous because he or she will miss withholds and the pc may become very upset.

________

Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.

________

A missed withhold is a should have known.

________

The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1972REISSUED 7 NOVEMBER 1974RemimeoCANCELSBTB OF 16 DECEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 13

HELP THE PC

In general, when getting rudiments in or getting off missed withholds or invalidations, help the pc by guiding his attention against the needle.

This is quite simple. The auditor asks the question, the needle instantly reacts, the pc (as he or she usually does) looks puzzled if the auditor says “It reacts.” The pc thinks it over. As he or she is thinking, the auditor will see the same reaction on the needle. Softly the auditor says “That” or “There” or “What’s that you’re looking at?” As the pc knows what he or she is looking at at that instant, the thing can be dug up.

This is auditor co-operation, not triumph.

Most often the pc does not know what it is that reacts as only unknowns react. Therefore an auditor’s “There” when the needle twitches again, before the pc has answered, co-ordinates with whatever the pc is looking at and thus it can be spotted and revealed by the pc. This is only done when the pc comm lags for a few seconds.

Remember, the pc is always willing to reveal. He or she doesn’t know What to reveal. Therein lies the difficulty. Pcs get driven out of session when asked to reveal something yet do not know what to reveal.

By the auditor’s saying “There” or “What’s that?” quietly each time the needle reacts newly, the pc is led to discover what should be revealed.

Auditors and pcs get into a games condition in Integrity Processing and rudiments only when the auditor refuses this help to the pc.

New auditors routinely believe that in Integrity Processing the pc knows the answer and won’t give it. This is an error. If the pc knew all the answer, it wouldn’t react on the meter.

Old-timers have found out that only if they steer by repeated meter reaction, giving the pc “There” or “What’s that?” can the pc answer up on most rudiments questions, missed withholds and so on.

But don’t use steering to harass the pc, or cut his comm, or draw attention to the auditor.

This is the only use of reads other than instant reads on the E-Meter.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1972REISSUED 7 NOVEMBER 1974 RemimeoCANCELSBTB OF 17 DECEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 14

HAVINGNESS

All valences are circuits are valences.

Circuits key out with knowingness.

This is the final definition of havingness.

Havingness is the concept of being able to reach. No-havingness is the concept of not being able to reach.

A withhold makes one feel he or she cannot reach. Therefore withholds are what cut havingness down and made runs on havingness attain unstable gains. In the presence of withholds havingness sags.

As soon as a withhold is pulled, ability to reach is potentially restored but the pc often does not discover this. It requires that havingness be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds.

Therefore havingness may be run in conjunction with Integrity Processing but may NOT be used to hide or obscure the fact of failure to F/N an Integrity Form question.

Integrity Processing is a specialized type of auditing, and it takes a lot of skill and at times some courage to do it well. Auditors must not be kind nor yet unkind. This does not mean that you steer a lukewarm middle course between kindness and unkindness. Neither of these two impostors have anything to do with it. You just go in and audit, you go in to find—and that means dig for—OVERTS. If you go in with Pc’s needle clean and your questioning can get that needle to react, then you are winning.

The success of an Auditor can be measured by the extent to which he can get reactions on the needle and then cleaning those reactions getting more reactions and cleaning those and so on. The skilled Auditor gets to the root of the trouble and clears up a whole batch of overts at once by handling chains of overts to F/N.

Integrity Processing is done in Model Session. The beginning rudiments are put in and by the time you start the body of the session, in this case the Integrity Processing, the Pc should have an F/N. The next thing is to tell the Pc that you are going to help him to clean up, and really clean up, the questions on the Form that you are using. REMEMBER IT IS THE QUESTION YOU ARE GOING TO CLEAN—NOT THE NEEDLE. You’ve already got a clean needle and you could probably keep it from reading on questions by bad TR 1, failure to dig, or just sheer bad auditing.

The next action is to announce the first question that you are going to handle, at the same time watching the meter for any read on first calling. It can be important to groove in the question. There are a variety of ways to do this, e.g. ask what the question means. What period or time the question covers. What activities would be included. Where the Pc has been that might be something to do with the question. If any other people are likely to be involved. In other words, you are steering the Pc’s attention to various parts of his bank and getting him to have a preliminary look. When this has been done using very good TR 1, you give him the question again. A small tick may now have developed into a real LF or BD. You take your Pc’s answer and get the specifics. If he gives you a general answer you ask him for a specific time (or a specific example). DON’T ACCEPT MOTIVATORS. If he gives you a motivator you say, “OK, but what did you do there?” and you want something before the motivator. Example: Pc: “I got mad at him because he kicked my foot.” Aud: “What had you done before he kicked your foot?” In this case the Pc is giving an overt, “I got mad at him,” but in fact he is cunningly selling the motivator “He kicked me in the foot.” So the rule here is, “Go earlier than the motivator.” Similarly you don’t accept criticisms, unkind thoughts, explanations. You want what the Pc has done and you want the Time, Place, Form and Event.

When you have succeeded in this you don’t leave it there. You ask for an earlier time he had done something like it and you keep going earlier. What you are after is the earliest time he stole, hit somebody, got angry with a Pc or whatever is his “crime”. Get the earliest one and you will find that the others will blow off like thistledown.

Keep a sly eye on your meter and you can tell when you are in a hot area. Use it to help you to know where to dig, but don’t use it to steer the Pc at this stage. This encourages laziness on the part of the Pc. You want him in there foraging about and digging up his bank in the process.

Having once gotten a read on the question, the question is not further checked on the meter. One simply follows the chain back earlier similar (same chain). Use standard Integrity Processing procedure until an F/N is obtained with cognition and VGIs.

If you do this properly you will have a well satisfied Pc. If he ARC breaks then you have missed something, so pull your missed withholds. A rising TA is a clue to something missed or a bypassed F/N. If Pc isn’t happy—very happy—at the end of a question then you have missed something. Pcs will tell you a hundred and one things that are wrong with your auditing, the D of P’s instruction, the form of the question, etc., but they all add up to the same thing—something has been missed.

One word of warning. If you leave a question unflat, mark it on your Auditor’s Report and TELL YOUR PC it isn’t flat. It is very bad practice to end session on a question without first F/Ning that question.

Good digging.

Compiled from LRH briefings and materials

Reissued as BTB byFlag Mission 1234

Revised byW/O Ron Shafran, CS—4

Approved by Board of Issues Commodore’s Staff Aides for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

2. Follow each non-reading question with suppress and leave each reading question only when it has been taken to EP (per HCO B 13 Dec 72R, Integrity Processing Series 10R, “Integrity Processing Questions Must Be F/Ned”). If suppression is found, start the cycle over with the question itself after suppress is clean. Realize that withholds exist, that they can be suppressed and that they can be restimulated and pulled. Once you have EP, however, don’t recheck the question.

3. Suppress is always asked “repetitively” and not as a “fast check”.

4. An R/S means CRIMES that MUST be pulled. A sporadic R/S can be turned on full by varying the question that produced it; the R/S will become wider and more chronic as the exact crime is approached. When the crime is found the R/S will become very pronounced, and then vanish. That’s CRIMES, not “failed to wash the car”.

5. A DR (Dirty Read) is not an R/S but can sometimes turn into an R/S by probing if a crime is present. It is noted on the worksheet as a “DR” though, never as an R/S.

6. The specific details of each misdeed must be gotten. Don’t buy generalized overts, motivators and justifications.

7. You still use a comm cycle. Avoid heavy accusation.

8. ARC Breaks must be clean—you can’t audit over an ARC Break.

9. Check for missed withholds every few questions.

10. Clean up the Integrity Processing Form at the end with such questions as ‘‘l/2 truth” and “Have you gotten away with anything?” etc.

11. Follow questions with “Have you told me more than was there?” on a Pc who tends to dub in overts or motivators.

12. Limit the Pc to this life if he takes up running track in an effort to avoid this life offenses.

13. Clean up any DN as soon as it appears by checking for a missed withhold or getting all? of the one you’re on.

14. Watch the Pc’s indicators, e.g. for signs of missed withholds.

15. Keep track of the TA position during Integrity Processing. If a question sends the TA higher and if it then remains higher, something was missed on that question.

16. Pursue each chain to basic.

17. Pat “No’s” can be handled by asking for overwhelmingly large overts, e.g. “Have you robbed any banks?” (Murder technique) or by reverse questions such as “Tell me about when you have not stolen something.”

18. A question that reads sporadically isn’t quite the right one and needs to be varied.

19. Keep aware of the needle—especially when a question is first called. Also, questions sometimes will show a need to be compartmented, e.g. “Have you ever stolen (read) anything?” Here the read on “stolen” should be pursued. A Pc with a known withhold can have a prior read and not an instant one—this is something to watch for.

21. Keep your TR 2 in. Otherwise the Pc will feel his answer has not been accepted and it can put a Pc on a withhold of nothing.

22. Help the Pc give a withhold he’s having trouble presenting. One way is by having him tell you what subject it’s about or “part of it”, another is by use of the overwhelmingly large overt approach: “Well, did you murder someone?”

23. Cut any natter line, pin down the critical thoughts and motivators and get the prior overt. The person getting Integrity Processing must not be allowed to sit and natter about a person or an Org, etc.

24. A person who has a valid EP on an Integrity Processing Form has the whole form ended off. It’s the subject of the Integrity List which EPs, not just one question.

25. Beware of a “false read”, which is thinking something read which didn’t. Protest can then give you a read. Clean up questions with “Protest”, “Suppress”, “Inval” buttons where the Pc says there’s nothing there. Then if it still reads on check, there is something there. False reads (saying something read which really didn’t) can wreck a case. Can also check for demanding a withhold he doesn’t have.

26. Make sure you get the question answered—question: “Did you steal the tools from the tool shed?” is not answered by “I have a thing about keys.”

The C/S ensures Integrity Processing is not entered into a Pc pgm in the middle of another rundown or auditing action. When required it may be entered into a pgm at a suitable rest point but any current process or rundown in progress on the Pc would be completed first. The C/S should not use this to unduly delay Integrity Processing when required, as a person withholding overts will not make gains until those overts have been pulled.

The Auditor must be qualified as a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. This is a new tech. Its practitioners must be specialist trained.

Standard C/Sing rules apply. In addition the C/S looks for the following key points.

1. Any non-sequitur F/N on some other subject. Ensures that each question is F/Ned on the subject being asked about. This is the primary thing the C/S inspects.

2. Check that each reading question was taken to an F/N.

3. Check that any R/Ses were recorded clearly and noted at the front of Pc folder for future use.

4. Ensure that an Integrity Processing Repair List (L1RA) is used if session ends with no F/N or Pc at all upset or gets sick shortly after Integrity Processing. Examiner 24 Hour Rule must be rigorously applied.

No. 1 above is of prime importance. Don’t permit Auditors to go into some unusual solution such as checking the question after it has been taken to F/N. That could wreck a case. The Auditor simply audits, keeps the Pc on the right chain going earlier as necessary to an F/N. It is the C/S who checks to see that it was in fact the question being asked that F/Ned. This is done by checking for any non-sequitur answers that F/Ned on some other subject.

If a person falls on his head after an Integrity Processing session an L1RA is given. However an FES to find missing questions that F/Ned on something else is done.

The whole essence of this is contained in F/Ning every item; getting question asked to F/N, not some other; Integrity Processing Repair List LIRA; fines for missing withholds; and Expanded Dianetics for R/Sers (revealing and recording R/Ses and R/Sing statements for later use in Exp Dianetics). This is what has made this a major new tech that gives fabulous case gains too.

It is the duty of the C/S to ensure the tech is known and correctly applied.

21 DECEMBER 1972Reissued 1 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 21 DECEMBER 1972SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 18

FORMULATING INTEGRITY PROCESSINGQUESTIONS

Withholds add up to overts, secrecies, individuation; they add up to games conditions and a lot more things than just O/W.

Although we call them withholds we’re really asking a person to straighten out his interpersonal relationships with other terminals and groups.

Our normal Integrity Processing is addressed to the individual versus the society or his family or group because it’s what people would consider reprehensible that makes a withhold. That is the basic center line of Integrity Processing, transgressions against the mores of the group.

You can have a special mores between the individual and different groups, between the son and the mother, between the husband and the wife, between the staff member and the organization, or between the Auditor and the Preclear (to which the Auditor Integrity Processing Form is directed).

It’s a moral code that you are processing one way or the other. You’re straightening out somebody on the “now I’m supposed to’s” against which they have transgressed. And having so transgressed they now are individuated. If their individuation is too obsessive they snap in and become the terminal and can assume the characteristics of that person.

In dealing with this you go straight to the person’s handling of masses and changes of spaces or into his most confused motional areas (not e-motional).

A person has been a recluse and stayed inside a house ever since he was 20. You don’t start running houses in his Integrity Processing. You find what area he was in before he was 20. Staying in the house is a solution to something. We find an area of considerable activity that lies prior to the difficulty and then run Integrity Processing on that area.

We find there was one boarding school he absolutely detests. That’s what we handle. Every question would have to do with that boarding school. There are students and boys and instructors and coaches and headmasters and buildings and athletic equipment, etc. Write them all down (you don’t ask the Pc) then work out all the types of crimes he might have been able to commit against those items. In this way you compile a whole Integrity Processing Form to suit the situation.

Most often one takes the most appropriate issued form and simply adds a few questions to cover the special situation. You can always add some questions but don’t omit any. When you want to handle a specific area or activity it can be more satisfactory to compile a special form covering all the things you think of that he could have done in that area that he is never going to tell anybody.

This is particularly so when the area has its own special tight mores he has cut up against and so has individuated himself from that area, cannot as-is any part of the track and of course gets trapped in that particular zone and activity.

Forget is a version of Not Know. So any sensory perceptic shut-off is an effort not to know and you have a target.

So you can do little special Integrity Processing Forms to go along with a special zone of activity and eventually you’ll get a “What do you know!” There is no use telling him what he has been doing wrong. He is too in the thing to see it. You can see it because you’re outside it.

You just put “Have you ever done anything to_____” to a whole list and you’ve got a formulized method of getting together an Integrity Processing Form.

A cognition is totally dependent upon a freedom to know. Overts and withholds are dedicated to Not Knowingness. It takes the guidance of the Integrity Processing Form list of questions to handle this.

The formula then is to just make a list of all the items you can think of that have anything to do with the target and write up a list of possible overts against them or questions that call for overts. Has he done anything to_____Has he interfered with anything about_____etc. Don’t include questions that call for motivators or justifications.

The first rule is—any area or zone of life with which a person is having difficulty in life, or has had difficulty, is a fruitful area for Integrity Processing. You’ll find out every time he’s got withholds in that zone or area.

The second rule is to break the problem down to its most fundamental expression. Then write down those nouns associated with it and those basic doingnesses associated with this fundamental expression. Then just phrase up your processing questions on the basis of “Have you ever_____” and any other verb you want to put in. “Have you ever done_____” “_____prevented “ etc. You don’t have to get too fancy as the needle will fall when you get close to it.

That area where an individual is having difficulty he is stupid. Stupidity is Not Knowingness. Not Knowingness occurs through overts. But the overt has to be hidden so it must be an overt which is withheld. These withholds then add up to stupidity, so of course he has trouble. There isn’t anything complicated about it at all.

Integrity Processing may be required on any Academy student, org staff member, or HGC pc where lack of progress, effectiveness or case gain is evident due to overts or withholds from the organization, or where there is a possibility of a threat to a Scientology Organization.

HCO or Executives may request such processing of their staff members. Neither Tech nor Qual are bound by such requests as an FES could reveal that the trouble stems from “out lists” or other matters needing correction. They should however take cognizance of such requests and do all possible to get the person handled and the Integrity Processing delivered with minimum delay when warranted.

Integrity Processing is not punishment in any way. It is auditing, must be C/Sed, must be delivered by a qualified Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist and will help the person by giving fabulous case gains when done correctly.

Compiled from LRH briefings and materials

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

Revised by W/O Ron Shafran CS-4

Approved by Commodore’s Staff Aides Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

24 DECEMBER 1 972RIssue IRevised & Reissued 18 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972Issue ISAME TITLE

(The only revision is on this page, paragraph 1: HCO B5 DEC 72 is revised to read BTB 5 DEC 72.)

Integrity Processing Form 1

THE BASIC INTEGRITY LIST

For use in Integrity Processing by a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. See BTB 5 DEC 72 for procedure.

AUDITOR: PRECLEAR:

ORG: DATE:

1. Have you ever lived or worked under an assumed name? _________2. Have you given me your right name? _________3. Are you here for a different purpose than you say? _________4. Have you ever stolen anything? _________5. Have you ever forged someone else’s signature? _________6. Have you ever blackmailed anybody? _________7. Have you ever done anything for which you could be blackmailed? _________8. Have you ever smuggled anything? _________9. Have you ever been in prison? _________10. Have you ever indulged in drunkenness? _________11. Have you ever done any reckless driving? _________12. Have you ever burglared any place? _________13. Have you ever embezzled money? _________14. Have you ever assaulted anyone? _________15. Have you ever told lies in court? _________16. Have you had anything to do with pornography? _________17. Have you ever committed arson? _________18. Have you ever been a drug addict? _________19. Have you ever peddled dope? _________20. Have you had any dealings with stolen goods? _________21. Do you have a police record? _________22. Have you ever raped anyone? _________23. Have you ever been involved in an abortion? _________

24. Have you ever committed adultery? _________25. Have you ever practiced homosexuality? _________26. Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family? _________27. Have you ever been sexually unfaithful? _________28. Have you ever made a practice of sexual perversion? _________29. Have you ever slept with someone you shouldn’t have? _________30. Have you ever committed culpable homicide? _________31. Have you ever bombed anything? _________32. Have you ever murdered anyone? _________33. Have you ever kidnapped anyone? _________34. Have you ever traded illegally? _________35. Have you ever betrayed anyone for money? _________36. Have you ever threatened anyone with a firearm? _________37. Have you been in illegal possession of firearms? _________38. Have you ever been paid for giving evidence? _________39. Have you ever destroyed something belonging to someone else? _________40. Have you ever been a spy for an organization? _________41. Have you ever been an informer? _________42. Have you ever been a member of an illegal organization? _________43. Have you ever falsely reported? _________44. Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of drugs? _________45. Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of alcohol? _________46. Have you ever used drugs or alcohol to procure sex? _________47. Have you ever ill-treated children? _________48. Have you ever taken money for giving someone sexual intercourse? _________49. Have you ever had any connection with a brothel? _________50. Have you ever gotten another into trouble for something you did? _________51. Have you ever been a spy for the police? _________52. Have you done something you are afraid the police may find out? _________53. Have you ever falsified the books in any firm you worked for? _________54. Have you ever disclosed confidential data? _________55. Have you ever done anything your mother would be ashamed to find out about? _________56. Have you ever purposely injured yourself? _________57. Have you committed any overts against yourself? _________58. Have you committed any overts against your family? _________59. Have you ever harmed an organization? _________60. Have you ever betrayed the trust of a group? _________61. Have you ever killed or maimed animals for pleasure? _________62. Have you ever mistreated animals? _________63. Have you ever administered electric shock? _________64. Have you ever tried to make someone insane? _________

65. Have you ever maliciously destroyed trees or plants? _________66. Have you ever destroyed or damaged another’s property? _________67. Have you ever taken part in sabotage? _________68. Have you ever harmed a religion? _________69. Have you ever persecuted another for their religious beliefs? _________70. Have you ever violated the tenets of a religion to which you belonged? _________71. Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology? _________72. Have you ever committed any overts on a Scientology Organization? _________73. Have you ever belonged to a group opposed to Scientology? _________74. Have you ever stolen anything from a Scientology Organization? _________75. Do you have any overts on LRH? _________76. Have you done anything you wouldn’t want LRH to know about? _________77. Do you have any overts on Mary Sue Hubbard? _________78. Is there something Mary Sue Hubbard shouldn’t know about you? _________79. Have you ever injured any Scientologists? _________80. Have you ever betrayed Scientology? _________81. Do you know of any secret plans against Scientology? _________82. Have you ever taken money to injure Scientology? _________83. Have you ever used Dianetics or Scientology to force sex on somebody? _________84. Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology Organization? _________85. Have you done something that should never be found out? _________86. Is there something you have avoided telling me? _________

24 DECEMBER 1 972RIssue IIRevised & Reissued 18 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972Issue IISAME TITLE

(The only revision is on this page, paragraph 1: HCO B5 DEC 72 is revised to read BTB 5 DEC 72.)

Integrity Processing Form 2

GENERAL STAFF INTEGRITY LIST

For use in Integrity Processing by a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. See BTB 5 DEC 72 for procedure.

AUDITOR: PRECLEAR:

ORG: DATE:

1. Have you stolen anything from a Scientology Organization? _________2. Are you here only to get free processing? _________3. Do you intend to leave this Organization once trained?4. Have you audited outside Pcs for money while a member of this Org? _________5. Have you fed Org Pcs to outside Auditors? _________6. Have you broken contract with an Org? _________7. Have you ever shifted the blame to an innocent staff member? _________8. Have you offered or delivered free service? _________9. Have you accepted services from this Organization without being invoiced? _________10. Have you ever advised anyone against joining staff of a Scientology Organization? _________11. Have you ever advised anyone not to take services at a Scientology Org? _________12. Have you ever given Scientology materials to a group opposed to Scientology? _________13. Have you ever said discreditable things to the press or public concerning Scientology? _________

14. Have you ever refused to comply with the legal orders of your senior? _________15. As a staff member have you given false reports? _________16. Have you falsified a statistic? _________17. Have you given false evidence to an Ethics body? _________18. Have you ever obstructed an Ethics investigation? _________19. Have you withheld data to protect yourself or another? _________20. Have you ever third partied a staff member? _________21. Have you feigned illness to avoid work? _________22. Have you caused upset to a public Pc or student? _________23. Have you prevented another from wearing his hat? _________24. Have you done anything to get another removed from post for your own personal gain? _________25. Have you ever engaged in a power push against a senior executive? _________26. Have you ever used a Scientology position to obtain unusual favors? _________27. Have you ever personally accepted a commission, percentage, bribe or gift for giving any firm or person this Organization’s business? _________28. Have you ever advised anyone against following policy? _________29. Have you prevented another from learning his post? _________30. Have you prevented another from studying or training? _________31. Have you ever slowed things down just because your seniors wanted them speeded up? _________32. Have you done anything to get another staff member in bad repute? _________33. Have you ever damaged Org property? _________34. Have you wasted Org supplies? _________35. Have you juggled Org accounts? _________35A. As a staff member have you produced any overt products? _________36. Have you taken credit for the work done by another?36A. Have you maligned another to enhance your own reputation? _________37. Have you caused or contributed to an Org mutiny? _________38. Have you encouraged another to blow? _________39. Have you done anything to damage the repute of a senior Scientology Org? _________40. Have you done anything to damage the repute of the Sea Org? _________

41. Have you discouraged Org Pcs or students from advancing to a senior Org? _________42. Have you falsely reported to a Sea Org Missionaire? _________43. Have you ever falsely reported to Flag? _________44. Have you knowingly violated policy? _________4S. Have you blamed others for not doing your job? _________46. Are you here purposely to upset or damage Scientology? _________47. While on staff of a Scientology Organization have you committed any civil crime? _________48. Is there something an Ethics Officer shouldn’t know about you? _________49. Have you done something you wouldn’t like LRH to know about? _________50. As a staff member have you committed some overt that hasn’t been revealed? _________

24 DECEMBER 1972RIssue IIIRevised & Reissued 18 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972Issue IIISAME TITLE

(The only revision is on this page, paragraph 1: HCO B5 DEC 72 is revised to read BTB 5 DEC 72.)

Integrity Processing Form 3

AUDITOR INTEGRITY LIST

For use in Integrity Processing by a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. See BTB 5 DEC 72 for procedure.

AUDITOR: PRECLEAR:

ORG: DATE:

1. Have you ever evaluated for a preclear? _________2. Have you ever invalidated or corrected a preclear’s data? _________3. Have you ever told a preclear about his case? _________4. Have you discussed a preclear’s case with others? _________5. Have you disclosed a preclear’s withholds? _________6. Have you made a preclear guilty? _________7. Have you altered or misapplied tech? _________8. Have you failed to keep an auditing appointment? _________9. Have you audited a preclear who was tired or hungry? _________10. Have you permitted a frequent change of Auditors? _________11. Have you sympathized with a preclear? _________12. Have you followed a preclear’s instructions? _________13. Have you refused to accept a preclear’s data? _________14. Have you allowed a preclear to end session on his own determinism? _________15. Have you ever walked off from a preclear in session? _________16. Have you ever refused to audit a preclear you could have helped? _________17. Have you gotten angry with a preclear in session? _________18. Have you not taken a process or rundown to full EP? _________19. Have you overrun a preclear? _________20. Have you mixed practices or advised other practices? _________21. Have you cut a preclear’s communication? _________22. Have you failed to acknowledge a preclear? _________23. Have you failed to handle a preclear’s originations? _________

24. Have you harassed or distracted a preclear? _________25. Have you explained or justified auditing errors? _________26. Have you audited without folder study? _________27. Have you failed to follow C/S instructions? _________28. Have you falsified auditing reports? _________29. Have you falsely called F/Ns? _________30. Have you fed a preclear cognitions or EPs? _________31. Have you failed to call F/Ns or give a Pc his win? _________32. Have you failed to fly a rudiment? _________33. Have you left a preclear ARC Broken? _________34. Have you failed to pull a withhold? _________35. Have you left a preclear with a problem? _________36. Have you failed to F/N all reading items? _________37. Have you given a preclear a wrong item? _________38. Have you audited without checking out on the materials? _________39. Have you run processes above your training level? _________40. Have you failed to follow the Grade Chart? _________41. Have you had a 2-D involvement with a preclear? _________42. Have you falsified auditing hours? _________43. Have you not done or completed cramming orders? _________44. Have you omitted vital data from worksheets? _________45. Have you delayed or not handled red-tags? _________46. Have you audited without handing in worksheets? _________47. Have you accepted incorrect C/S instructions? _________48. Have you audited without a program? _________49. Have you falsely reported your classification level? _________50. Have you failed to clear commands or all words in commands? _________51. Have you neglected to handle your own misunderstoods? _________52. Have you neglected to study the C/S Series HCO Bs? _________53. Have you given free auditing to public Pcs? _________54. Have you audited Pcs for private gain? _________55. Have you disclosed confidential data? _________56. Have you been critical of Pcs to others? _________57. Have you been critical of other Auditors to Pcs? _________58. Have you used tech for some other purpose? _________59. Have you continued to repair a Pc doing well? _________60. Have you given verbal tech data? _________61. Have you failed to apply study tech? _________62. Have you been insecure with materials? _________63. Have you falsified Auditor bonus claims? _________64. Have you failed to study your hat? _________65. Did you violate policy? _________

66. Have you failed to complete intensives? _________67. Have you C/Sed in the chair? _________68. Have you wasted auditing time? _________69. Have you assumed you knew instead of using prepared lists? _________70. Have you failed to drill TRs regularly? _________71. Have you ever out of curiosity allowed a preclear to give up withholds of another? _________72. Have you ever failed to improve your ability as an Auditor? _________73. Have you ever used the wrong process on a preclear? _________74. Have you ever audited badly? _________75. Have you ever done anything weird or strange with a preclear? _________76. Have you ever advised someone not to be audited? _________77. Is there anything about your auditing activities which shouldn’t be known? _________78. Have you ever falsely represented your achievements as an Auditor? _________79. Have you ever made false promises to a preclear? _________80. Do you have overts against the subject of Dianetics? _________81. Do you have overts against the subject of Scientology? _________82. Do you have overts on the subject of the mind? _________83. Do you have overts against a C/S? _________84. Do you have overts against a D of P? _________85. Do you have overts against a Tech Sec? _________86. Do you have overts against other staff members? _________87. As an Auditor have you done anything you shouldn’t have done? _________88. As an Auditor is there something you have failed to do? _________89. Do you still have your attention on any of these questions? _________90. Have you thought of something you haven’t told me? _________

(Revision in this type style)RemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972Issue IVSAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Form 4

SUPERVISOR INTEGRITY LIST

For use in Integrity Processing by a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. See BTB 5 DEC 72 for procedure.

AUDITOR: PRECLEAR:

ORG: DATE:

1. Have you ever given a student verbal data? _________2. Have you taught a course without a checksheet? _________3. Have you given students checksheets other than those officially approved? _________4. Have you deleted materials from an approved checksheet? _________5. Have you failed to provide course materials? _________6. Have you failed to update and correct checksheets before issuing to new students? _________7. Have you permitted a student to falsely attest? _________8. Have you attested to a student’s course completion without verifying his ability to apply the materials? _________9. Have you ever permitted a student to blow? _________10. Have you blamed others for poor course attendance? _________11. Have you become sexually involved with a student? _________12. Have you falsified statistics? _________13. Have you ever gotten angry with a student? _________14. Have you ever interrupted a student who was doing well? _________15. Have you ever failed to handle a bogged student? _________16. Have you ever made a student redo checkouts to boost stats? _________17. Have you ever lied to a student? _________18. As a Supervisor have you ever left a course unattended? _________19. Have you ever failed to refer a student to the materials? _________20. Have you ever failed to keep a course exactly on schedule? _________21. Have you failed to apply Word Clearing tech? _________

22. When Word Clearing students have you ignored reads? _________23. Have you pretended you can read a meter? _________24. Have you ever used Supervisor status to obtain unusual favors? _________25. Have you passed a student just to be kind? _________26. Have you ever failed to correct a student’s mistakes? _________27. Have you done something you wouldn’t like your students to know about? _________28. Have you ever failed to fully apply study tech? _________29. Are you pretending that you know study tech? _________30. Have you failed to use Word Clearing? _________31. Have you done admin or other duties during course time? _________32. Have you ever allowed a course to be interrupted? _________33. Have you ever permitted a student to enturbulate a class? _________34. Have you ever offloaded students instead of handling? _________35. Have you ever failed to recover a blown student? _________36. Have you ever used your position as a Supervisor to procure students for another group? _________37. Have you ever subjected a student to ridicule? _________38. Have you C/Sed student sessions when not qualified to do so? _________39. Have you ever flunked a student who really knew the data? _________40. Is there something a student might find out about you? _________41. Have you ever run a slow course? _________42. Have you not studied your hat? _________43. Have you pretended qualifications not attained? _________44. Have you personally studied past misunderstoods? _________45. Have you ever invalidated study tech? _________46. Have you ever invalidated Scientology materials? _________47. As a Supervisor have you produced any overt products? _________48. Have you ever condoned out-tech? _________49. As a Supervisor have you ever done anything you wouldn’t want LRH to know about? _________50. Concerning study or supervision have you committed any overt that hasn’t been revealed? _________

24 DECEMBER 1972RIssue VRevised & Reissued 18 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972Issue VSAME TITLE

(The only revision is on this page, paragraph 1: HCO B5 DEC 72 is revised to read BTB 5 DEC 72.)

Integrity Processing Form 5

STUDENT INTEGRITY LIST

For use in Integrity Processing by a Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist. See BTB 5 DEC 72 for procedure.

AUDITOR: PRECLEAR:

ORG: DATE:

1. Are you here for some purpose other than what you say? _________2. Have you falsified your qualifications? _________3. Are you trying to upset or damage Scientology? _________4. Have you done something you don’t want this Organization to find out about? _________5. Have you had a sexual relationship with another student? _________6. Are you here to procure Pcs or students for another group? _________7. Are you here to get data for someone else? _________8. Have you ever cheated in an examination? _________9. Have you ever upset a classroom? _________10. Have you ever made trouble for a teacher? _________11. Do you have overts against students? _________12. Have you falsely attested to passing something? _________13. Have you ever given a twin a false pass? _________14. Have you allowed yourself to be passed on something you didn’t fully understand? _________15. Have you pretended to know? _________16. Have you ever falsely signed off an item on a checksheet? _________17. Have you argued with a Supervisor? _________18. Have you ever refused to comply with a cramming order? _________19. During study have you ever failed to look up a word you didn’t know? _________

20. Have you ever checked out a student without demanding application? _________21. Have you ever flunked a student for something he really knew? _________22. Have you ever interrupted a student while studying? _________23. Have you ever disturbed a class? _________24. Do you have overts against the subject you are studying? _________25. Have you done something that makes you not deserve study? _________26. Have you not paid your course fees? _________27. Do you have unpaid debts to this or another Scientology Org? _________28. Have you ever studied in order to harm others? _________29. Have you ever used punishment to make others study? _________30. Do you intend using what you learn here for some unworthy purpose? _________31. Have you violated student rules? _________32. Have you stolen anything belonging to another student? _________33. Have you taken Org materials without authorization? _________34. Have you given another student verbal tech data? _________35. Have you been insecure with confidential materials? _________36. Have you read classified materials? _________37. Have you given Scientology materials to the press? _________38. Are you a member of a group opposed to Scientology? _________39. Have you ever caused a student to blow? _________40. Have you badly audited a fellow student? _________41. Have you ever made Scientology or a Scientology Organization look bad? _________42. Have you done something you don’t want this Organization to know about? _________43. Do you have any overt connected with study or this Organization that you haven’t revealed? _________

In some researches I have been doing recently on the field of study, I have found what appears to be the basic law on complexity.

It is:

THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF NON-CONFRONT.

Reversing this:

THE DEGREE OF SIMPLICITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF CONFRONT and

THE BASIS OF ABERRATION IS A NON-CONFRONT.

To the degree that a being cannot confront he enters substitutes which, accumulating, bring about a complexity.

I found this while examining the subject of NAVIGATION in order to teach it and clarify it.

I found that Man had based the subject on an incorrect primary assumption. A11 subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption. In Man’s technology this is usually weak and non-factual which makes his technology very frail and limited. To reform a subject one has to find this primary assumption and improve it. This reforming of technical subjects is of great interest to us because our subject Scientology is advanced even beyond the space travel technologies of very high civilizations. Yet it is flanked on all sides by Man’s corny antique technology in the field of physics, chemistry, ”mathematics” and so on. This tends to hold us back somewhat. We strained his tech forward to get the E-Meter, the one thing we had to have.

In Navigation, Man bases the whole subject on the assumption that one can’t confront where he came from or is going or where he is. It assumes he is lost.

This is a basis assumption of non-confront. He can’t directly see where he has been or where he is going at sea—it is so large—so he takes off from a point of no-confront in all his reasoning in the subject.

Therefore he goes into a series of symbols and begins to substitute symbols for symbols. This winds him up in a mass of complexity. One spends 90% of his time in studying this subject trying to find out what symbols the symbols are meant to represent. He says in his texts “G.H.A.” On search we find this means “Greenwich Hour Angle”. On further search we find this means what angle some heavenly body forms when related to Greenwich as Zero. On further search we find the idiocy that the navigator’s clock tells angles in HOURS when all he needs is a clock face giving 360 degrees. This is of course complete nonsense. Why hours, and two sets of 12 at that (midnight to Noon and Noon to midnight) when what he is trying to find out is how many degrees of time have passed. He refers his time to the Sun which, because of the rotations of Earth every 24 hours, appears at an increasing number of degrees from Greenwich England as the day advances.

Because he starts from a no-confront of ship or plane position he then carries no-confront through the whole subject. If a man isn’t lost as he begins to “navigate” he very often is when he finishes!

Actually no ship or plane is ever lost as to position. One knows he is on Earth and in what ocean and on what side of what ocean and the subject really should be one which merely lets one CORRECT his position a bit.

Man in this subject of navigation even scorns direct observation (confront) and calls it “jackass navigation!”

In actual fact real navigation is the science of recognition of positions and objects and estimation of relative distances and angles between them.

The subject is made complex because it has become, in Man’s hands, the substitution of symbols for symbols all based on the assumption that he can’t confront his departure, his current spot or his point of arrival.

Out of this, with further study in other fields, I found that any complexity stemmed from an initial point of non-confront.

This is why looking at or recognizing the source of an aberration in processing “blows” it, makes it vanish.

Mental mass accumulates in a vast complexity solely because one would not confront something. To take apart a problem requires only to establish what one could not or would not confront.

The basic thing Man can’t or won’t confront is evil.

These people who always rationalize evil behavior—”He wasn’t feeling well which is why he murdered the policeman,” etc.—can be counted on to voice some theetieweetie (goodie-goodie) justification for somebody’s thoroughly evil conduct. Mr. X wrecks a house and you remark on it and Miss Theetie Weetie will feel compelled to say, “Oh, Mr. X had a poor childhood and he didn’t mean any wrong ....” She can’t confront the simple but evil fact that Mr. X is a complete dog. One feels his hair stand on end when Miss Theetie Weetie does this because one is observing a complete non-confront on the part of Miss Theetie Weetie. She is too unreal to do other than make one feel he has had an ARC Break.

One will also find that Miss Theetie Weetie leads a horribly complex life—adjusting her thinking to agree with “air spirits” and leaving her family because there might be mice in the basement.

When no-confront enters, a chain may be set up which leads to total complexity and total unreality.

This, in a very complex form, we call an “aberrated condition”.

People like that can’t solve even rudimentary problems and act in an aimless and confused way.

To resolve their troubles requires more than education or discipline. It requires processing.

Some people are so “complex” that their full aberration does fully not resolve until they attain a high level of OT.

A large number of people de-aberrate just by the education contained in Scientology as they find in our subject the natural laws of life and seeing (confronting) them, “blow” huge holes in their complexities and aberrations.

Therefore the above laws are very important ones as they explain what aberration really is and why processing really works.

Aberration is a chain of vias based on a primary non-confront.

Processing is a series of methods arranged on an increasingly deep scale of bringing the preclear to confront the no-confront sources of his aberrations and leading him to a simple, powerful, effective being.

The following definitions are applicable to Scientology study technology:

CHECKSHEET: A list of materials, often divided into sections, that give the theory and practical steps which, when completed, give one a study completion. The items are selected to add up to the required knowledge of the subject. They are arranged in the sequence necessary to a gradient of increasing knowledge of the subject. After each item there is a place for the initial of the student or the person checking the student out. When the checksheet is fully initialed it is complete, meaning the student may now take an exam and be granted the award for completion. Some checksheets are required to be gone through twice before completion is granted.

CHECKLIST: A list of actions or inspections to ready an activity or machinery or object for use or estimate the needful repairs or corrections. This is erroneously sometimes called a “checksheet”, but that word is reserved for study steps.

CHECKOUT: The action of verifying a student’s knowledge of an item given on a checksheet.

TWIN CHECKOUT: When two students are paired they check each other out. This is different than a Supervisor checkout.

SUPERVISOR CHECKOUT: A checkout done by the Supervisor of a course or his assistants.

THEORY: The data part of a course where the data as in books, tapes and manuals is given.

PRACTICAL: The drills which permit the student to associate and coordinate theory with the actual items and objects to which the theory applies. Practical is application of what one knows to what one is being taught to understand, handle or control.

TWIN: The study partner with whom one is paired. Two students studying the same subject who are paired to check out or help each other are said to be “Twinned”.

TWO-WAY COMM: The precise technology of a process used to clarify data with another for the other. It is not chatter. It is governed by the rules of auditing. It is used by Supervisors to clear up blocks to a person’s progress in study, on post, in life or in auditing. It is governed by the communication cycle as discovered in Scientology.

METER CHECK: The action of checking the reaction of a student to subject matter, words or other things, isolating blocks to study, interpersonal relations or life. It is done with an E-Meter.

COURSE SUPERVISOR: The instructor in charge of a course and its students.

COURSE ADMINISTRATOR: The course staff member in charge of the course materials and records.

TECH SERVICES: The activity which enrolls, routes, schedules, distributes the mail of and assists the housing of students.

STARRATE CHECKOUT: A very exact checkout which verifies the full and minute knowledge of the student of a portion of study materials and tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.

ZERO RATE: Material which is only checked out on the basis of general understanding.

BLOW: Unauthorized departure from an area, usually caused by misunderstood data or overts.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: An authorized period of absence from a course granted in writing by a Course Supervisor and entered in the student’s study folder.

ROLL BOOK: The master record of a course giving the student’s name, local and permanent address and the date of enrollment and departure or completion.

QUAL: The Qualifications Division (Division V of an org) where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record.

CRAMMING: A section in the Qualifications Div where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams.

PROGRAMMING: The overall planning for a person of the courses, auditing and study he should follow for the next extended time period.

STUDENT CONSULTATION: The personal handling of student problems or progress by a qualified consultant.

HC: A HUBBARD CONSULTANT is skilled in testing, two-way comm, consultation, programming and interpersonal relations. This is the certificate especially awarded to persons trained to handle personnel, students and staff. These technologies and special training were developed to apply Scientology auditing skills to the field of administration especially. An HC is not an auditor but a consultant. HC is a requisite for Course Supervisors and Student Consultants.

SCHEDULING: The hours of a course or the designation of certain times for auditing.

OUT: Things which should be there and aren’t or should be done and aren’t are said to be “Out”, i.e. “Enrollment Books are out.”

IN: Things which should be there and are or should be done and are, are said to be “In”, i.e. “We got scheduling in.”

PACK: A pack is a collection of written materials which match a checksheet. It is variously constituted—such as loose leaf or a cardboard folder or bulletins in a cover stapled together. A pack does not necessarily include a booklet or hardcover book that may be called for as part of a checksheet.

MANUAL: A booklet of instruction for a certain object or procedure or practice.

POINTS: The arbitrary assignment of a credit value to a part of study materials. “One page equals one point.” “That drill is worth 25 points.”

POINT SYSTEM: The system of assigning and counting up points for studies and drills that give the progress of a student and measure his speed of study. They are kept track of by the student and Course Administrator and added up each week as the student’s statistic. The statistic of the course is the combined study points of the class.

COMPLETION: A “completion” is the completing of a specific course or an auditing grade, meaning it has been started, worked through and has successfully ended with an award in Qual.

SUCCESS STORY: The statement of benefit or gains or wins made by a student or a preclear or pre-OT to the Success Officer or someone holding that post in an org.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JUNE 1971Issue I(Corrected and Reissued 30 December 72.Corrections in this type style.)Remimeo

Study Series 2

CONFRONTING

The first requisite of any subject is the ability to confront the various components (things) (parts) (divisions) of the subject itself.

All misunderstoods, confusions, omissions, alterations of a subject begin with failures or unwillingness to confront.

The difference between a good pilot and a bad pilot depends of course on consistent study and practice, but underlying this, determining whether the person will study and practice, is the ability to confront the components of study and airplanes.

A “quick study”, by which is meant a student who learns rapidly or a person who grasps a subject quickly, has a high ability to confront that subject.

In a dramatic profession, the wild animal trainer who could confront wild animals remained alive. The one who couldn’t confront was too slow of perception to live long.

In a more common line of work, the fast typist could confront study and typing in the first place and the slow typist couldn’t and can’t.

The confusions about “talent” and “native ability” and such are resolved to no small extent when one recognizes the role played by the ability to confront.

Basically, if one can just be there with it, he can then achieve the skill of communicating with whatever “it” is and handling it.

Thus, before communicating with the components of a subject can properly begin, one must be able to be there comfortably with the components of the subject.

All power depends upon the ability to hold a location. To communicate one must be able to hold to a location.

This is even true in the physical universe. You can’t move a chair unless you can hold a position yourself near the chair. If you don’t believe it, try it.

Thus the ability to communicate with precedes the ability to handle. But before one can communicate with something one must be able to be in a location near it.

The age-old puzzle of how some scholars can get “A” on a subject they have studied and then not be able to apply even a scrap of the data is resolved by this fact of confronting. They can confront the book, the class and the thought. But they haven’t attained the ability to confront the physical objects of the subject.

At least such “glib” students can confront the book, the paper, the thought. They are partway there.

Now all they need to do is confront as well the physical things to which the subject is applied and they would be able to apply what they know.

Some people are not so lucky as to be “glib” students. They have to work up to “being there” with the book, paper, classroom and teacher.

Thus “confronting” is actually the ability to be there comfortably and perceive.

Amazing reactions occur when conscious effort is made to do this. Dullness, perception trouble, fogginess, sleep and even pains, emotions and convulsions can occur when one knowingly sets out to BE THERE AND COMFORTABLY PERCEIVE with the various parts of a subject.

These reactions discharge and vanish as one perseveres (continues) and at last, sometimes soon, sometimes after a long while, one can be there and perceive the component.

As one is able to confront one part he then finds it easier to confront other components.

People have mental tricks they use to get around actual confronting—to be disinterested, to realize it’s not important, to be sort of half dead, etc—but these discharge (run out) as well eventually and at last they can just be there and comfortably perceive.

Eye blinks, swallows, twitches, aches, pains, are all systems of interrupting confronting and are the symptoms of discomfort. There are many of these. If they are present then one is not just being there and perceiving.

Confronting on a via (using a relay point) is another method of ducking out of it.

The worst off cannot even tolerate the idea of being there and perceiving anything. They run away, even go into emotional fits rather than be there and perceive. Such people’s lives are a system of interruptions and vias, all substitutes for confronting. They are not very successful. For success in life depends not on running away from it but by being there and perceiving it and then being able to communicate with it and handle it.

A “skipped gradient” means taking on a higher degree or amount before a lesser degree of it has been handled. One has to go back and handle the missed degree or thing or else one will have just losses on a subject thereafter.

“Flattening” something means to do it until it no longer produces a reaction.

“Overrunning” something means accumulating protests and upsets about it until it is just a mass of stops. Anyone can do anything forever unless he begins to stop it.

“Invalidation” means a refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be a fact.

GRADIENTS

Some of the things one would have to be able to be there and perceive in order to study, placed on a graduated scale of increasing difficulty are:

Beginning at all.

The classroom or work space.

Paper.

Books.

Writing materials.

Sounds.

A Student.

The Supervisor.

The area of the study subject’s physical components.

The motionless equipment of the subject.

The moving equipment of the subject.

Masses connected with the subject.

The subject as a whole.

The next stages would have to be confronting while moving. This requires a consecutive being there and perceiving even though one is occupying different locations.

The next stages would be confronting selectively while moving despite other things seeking to distract.

This Bulletin is not an effort to set out the numerous confronting drills. It is intended to set out the various axioms or laws necessary to an understanding of the subject of confronting itself.

From these brief notes all the axioms can be derived.

The fundamental and basic simplicities of confronting itself is the first thing that must be grasped. All complexity surrounding any subject or action is derived (comes from) a greater or lesser inability to confront.

22 JULY 1971Issue IIReissued 9 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1971Issue IISAME TITLE

Study Series 3

CONFRONTING, ADDITION

(Reference: HCO B 2 June 71, Study Series 2,CONFRONTING)

In reference to the gradient of study objects to confront, under the item “paper” the following procedure applies:

The student would confront an HCO PL or an HCO B. It is tacked to the wall upside down so it can’t be read. The student sits in a chair and confronts it. It is not the significance of the bulletin that the student is confronting, it is the bulletin itself, the physical object. This is continued until the student is able to be there and comfortably perceive the upside-down bulletin. It is usually done for 2 hours, no blink, no swallow, no twitch. Once this is accomplished, the student moves to the next gradient per the list in HCO B 2 June 71, CONFRONTING, Study Series 2.

Hatted Scn Expeditor Taken from an LRH Note

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

As very few Westerners have ever seen a Chinese or Arab school in progress, it is very easy for them to miss the scene when one says “Chinese School”.

The term has been used to designate an action where an instructor or officer, with a pointer, stands up before an assembled class and taps a chart or org board and says each part of it.

It is very funny to one who knows or has heard a real Chinese school to see the class sitting there silently. This is strictly a Western pattern. This is how teacher does it in Omaha or Cornell. But never in Shanghai!

A Chinese class sings out in unison (all together) in response to the teacher. They participate!

The only Western near equivalent is a German beer hall where the audience choruses items sung out by the song leader.

Chinese School, then, is an action of class vocal participation. It is a very lively loud affair. It sounds like chanting.

In a real Chinese School the response is so timed that although spoken by many voices it is quite easy to tell what answer is being chorused.

It is essentially a system that establishes instant thought responses so that the student, given “2x2” thinks instantly “4”.

For example, the instructor, tapping a big multiplication chart cries “Two Times Two”. The class in one voice cries “Four”. Instructor: “Five times Two”. Class: “Ten”. And so on and on and on by the hour.

This gets more complex when, let us say, the maxims of good conduct or the Koran are being taught. In such cases the tablets or scrolls are on the wall. The teacher calls Chapter and verse and the students chant it.

You could teach the Laws of Listing and Nulling, The Auditor’s Code, Axioms and so on in this way.

The tools are the same—an instructor, a pointer, a chart or set of pictures or big scrolls, a class.

There are two steps in such teaching.

A. The Instructor taps and says what it is. Then asks the Class what it is and they chant the answer.

B. When the Class has learned by being told and repeating, the Instructor now taps with the pointer and asks and the class chants the correct answer.

DRILL

The Instructor himself has to grasp the drill.

Here is how it would go on an org bd.

A.

Instructor taps Div 1. “This is Division One HCO Division.”

Class chants “Division One HCO Division”.

Instructor taps Div 6. “This is Division 6 Distribution Division.”

Class: “Division 6 Distribution Division.”

And so on until all divisions have been named a few times.

B.

Instructor taps Div 1. “What is this?”

Class: “Division One HCO Division.”

Instructor taps Div 4. “What is this?”

Class: “Division Four Tech Division.”

And so on and on. The divisions are then considered trained in on the Class.

Next one would go to Departments. Then to philosophic names of Departments. Then to Sections. Then one would go to the titles of each Division Head. Then to Dept Heads. Etc. Etc.

If one had a function org board of what each div and department and post did one would go on with the same thing.

A Chinese School drill run for a short period each day will eventually cover an enormous amount of org bd.

Newcomers to the drill have to be schooled in to catch up or join a new class.

Anything can be taught by Chinese School that is to be learned by rote. The parts and actions are always the same.

There is also a version that uses a text, preferably with a copy of it in each student’s hands. It sounds the same.

One is limited only by what he can put on a chart or even in a text where each student has a copy of the text open before him.

Crude charts are easy to draw up with a felt (heavy ink) pen. The size of a chart is determined by the ability of the students furthest away to see it easily.

Cloud types, pictures to be named in a foreign language, even slides of airplane types, anything can be Chinese Schooled that is to be learned verbatim. And you’d be surprised how many things should be. And if they aren’t the person has a shaky foundation under the subject.

Care should be taken to define strange words. But it is not really a problem or exercise in word clearing. It is verbatim rote teaching.

(a) To a person who fails the Primary Rundown because of High or Low TA or Study Troubles.

(b) To every Course Supervisor regardless of his TA.

(c) To persons whose literacy level is not adequate to do the Primary Rundown.

(d) To persons on drugs or who have been on drugs.

(e) To auditors who go too often to Cramming.

(f) Auditors whose auditing errors show up later on pcs.

(g) Staff members who are not able to maintain stats.

(h) Staff members who get into Ethics trouble.

(i) Students with low study stats.

(j) Blown students.

(k) Members of the public who wish to purchase a “Study Rundown” but who are not going to be auditors and who are not on major Courses (HSDC, Academy Class IV, or above).

The Rundown consists of Ethics orientation on the first dynamic, Potential Trouble Source from connections with hostile elements, drug handling, case handling, the why of not using Study Tech or study, the Study Correction List and handling, Method 7, a review of Grammar, and then back to a Primary RD consisting of Method I Word Clearing, Method 8 on Study Tapes and Student Hat.

The Primary Correction Rundown is actually a checklist where each one of these is done.

This checklist is kept in his pc folder on the inside of the left front cover and marked off.

2. HCO PL 3 May 72 with 2 lists Listing & Nulling on steps 3 and 4 of the PL. By an auditor. May require the repair of past Whys found by C/S 78. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

3. PTS Check by Auditor. Is he connected to anyone hostile to Dianetics or Scientology? Handle by PL 5 Apr 72. (It isn’t necessary he leave to handle. A letter will do.) More extensive action can be done later when he gets a full PTS RD. Such persons can also be run as a Problem. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

5. Case Handling. Pgm by C/S to cover obvious outnesses, GF Method 5, GF 40XR and other actions needful. (If chronically ill or has a psychotic history should be run on Expanded Dianetics if available, if not by objective processes and Dianetics.) (Can also be run on Triple or Expanded Grades.) DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

6. The Why of not Studying if never studied before in an org or not using Study Tech. Done as a BD F/N Item. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

7. The Study Correction List HCO B 4 Feb 72. Assess Method 5 with good TRs, good Impingement, good metering. Handle in full. If PTS shows up again do full PTS RD. Handle to a full F/Ning list on final assessment. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

9. Review of Grammar by a Word Clearer M4 with student studying between checks by himself and reporting daily. Use a simple grammar such as that developed for foreign language students. Do not use an American dictionary and an English Grammar or vice versa, either both American or both English. Must check out clean on Method 4 and know about grammar. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

10. Method 1 Word Clearing HCO B 30 June 71 Revised to 11 May 72, Word Clearing Series 8RB. A11 the misunderstood background words of all words on the list must be cleared. The list must F/N. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

In going through the Study Tapes the first time, the student looks up every word.

On this first time he does not study for the sense of what is being said. He only listens to words.

In this and in Method 4 word clearing, when being checked he is asked “What is the definition of (word)?” He is NOT asked “Do you know the meaning of(word)?” To this he could answer “Yes” and believe he did. But when asked for the definition that he must then give, it is a different story entirely.

This is also the right way to handle any defining of words. M2, M4. As well as Methods I & 3.

Never let the student be unsure. Make him look it up.

You will find that it is the simple word, “as”, “such”, “from”, that really bogs reading, not technical terms.

In the Study Tapes there are some photographic terms. Any photo dictionary can give these. Almost any camera store has such dictionaries.

SECOND TIME

The second time through the Study Tapes the student listens for the sense of the sentences._________

It is very revealing to do the Primary Rundown in this fashion.

Some students are actually getting meaning out of something heard or read for the first time in their lives._________

No wonder schoolchildren, by test, get more stupid each additional year of school. This has been established by actual test, that they do. Each year they just have a higher mountain of misunderstood words!

The Primary Rundown done HONESTLY is quite an adventure in opening up one’s Communication Channels with life!

To know about the importance of the Primary Rundown read LRH ED 178 Int.

The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and Study Tech. It makes a student SUPER-LITERATE.

The Primary Rundown is given in the TECH DIVISION (Div IV, Dept 11).

(The TECH DIV may also give that portion of the Primary Correction Rundown which calls for Method 1 and Method 8 of the Primary Correction Rundown which is described in HCO B 30 March 72 Revised 30 May 72.)

SIMPLICITY

The Primary Rundown is very simple in its steps. Do NOT add things onto it. Do not do something else.

HONESTY

The keynote of the Rundown is Honesty. The whole rundown can be wasted and the student fail and the End Phenomena missed if the student goes dishonest or he is just pushed for student points by the Supervisor.

If done dishonestly the whole future study career of the student will be not only more difficult but may fail entirely.

Honesty means don’t skip, don’t brush it off, don’t say it was done when it wasn’t.

Later checks of auditing or administrative failures contain checks of the Primary Rundown errors and honesty. The whole rundown would have to be done again.

STEPS

1. Verify if student’s Tone Arm on a meter is usually between position 2 and 3. If so he may proceed. If not he at once is sent to the Primary Correction Rundown as his case needs repair or handling before he can do the Rundown as mental mass will get in his way and he may get upset. This step is checked by the Supervisor.

(The Primary Correction Rundown is covered by HCO B 30 March 72 REVISED 30 May 72. It consists of auditing and study correction actions.)

2. If the Tone Arm is usually between 2 and 3 on the meter dial the person is made into a Word Clear using Method 1 Word Clearing. (HCO B 30 June 71 Revised Issue II, Revised 9 Aug 71, Revised 11 May 72, WORD CLEARING SERIES 8RB.) This is done in the HGC or Dept 13 of Qual or may be done in a student Co-Audit. Failure to do this step or do it well will make Study Tech difficult. A good job on this Method One will give back a person’s education and send his Intelligence Quotient up. It is not a quickie action. The person doing Word Clearing Method 1 on a person is doing an auditing action. It has to be done well to achieve the final result of becoming a Word Clear.

If any errors are made or the person does not F/N at the Examiner (where he goes after each session for a meter check), HCO B 21 July 71 Revised (Revised 9 Aug 71, 31 Mar 72), WORD CLEARING SERIES 35, the Word Clearing Correction List, is used. It can be used as often as there are upsets.

This step should be done before the next step is begun as it makes the next step so much easier.

3. If in doing Method 1 the person was found to be very deficient in Grammar and vocabulary, even though Method One was finished but took a very long time or couldn’t be finished due to case, the person is sent to Dept 13 for the Primary Correction Rundown.

4. If the person did all right on Method 1, he is now put on Study Tapes. This is NOT just listening to Study Tapes, heaven forbid. This is HCO B 21 June 72 Issue IV, Word Clearing Series 41, METHOD 8.

This is a long and careful cycle.

It is completed in full.

It consists of looking up every new word on the tape in a grammar or large dictionary and then listening to the tape.

The full directions are given in HCO B 21 June 72 Issue IV, Word Clearing Series 41, Method 8.

5. The Student Hat is now done Method 8.

This completes the Primary Rundown.

If correctly done, the person will achieve the condition of Super-Literacy. This is fully described in LRH ED 178 International of 30 May 72.

COURSE SUPERVISOR

It is up to the Course Supervisor to hold this line in. His students will not prosper if their study is begun without a Primary Rundown.

It is a high crime to omit this vital step.

NO INTERFERENCE ZONE

Persons who are on Solo Auditing between R6EW and OT III may not be put on a Primary Rundown or a Primary Correction Rundown. See HCO B 16 Apr 72 Issue II.

They may not be given Method 1 Word Clearing. They may only be Method 4ed on Solo Instruction Materials.

BUT THEY MAY NOT BE DEBARRED FROM STUDY.

To all but those in the No Interference Area THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN IS THE REQUIRED FIRST STEP TO ALL STUDY.

When on or after OT III, such persons must now do the Primary Rundown before any continuance of study. It now becomes Mandatory.

CORRECTION RD

The Primary Correction Rundown takes care of people who have trouble on the Primary Rundown.

But do not lightly order the person to the Primary Correction RD. If they can get through the Primary Rundown with a bit of Supervisor time, let them go on through.

But if they are nattery or upset or desperate even when given help, it is the Primary Correction Rundown which will handle.

Do not just get rid of a Class to Qual.

DRUGS

Students who are or have been on Drugs need a Drug Rundown before tackling Method 1. Drugs fog up a student and prevent gains. And he loses the gains he gets.

The answer is a full Drug Rundown. (See HCO B 25 Oct 71, “The Special Drug Rundown”.) This will end off the drugs and let him live way above any plane he thought drugs put him on.

We handle drug cases so easily it is foolish not to take this obvious step. The reason he went on drugs or alcohol also comes off.

Then he can study and retain what he learns.

OPEN DOOR

The Primary Rundown is the open door to brilliance.

Super-Literacy is a new state for Man, existing in the past only in a few, accidentally, who became the geniuses and great names of the race.

Students who struggle with the Primary Rundown (HCO B 4 Apr 72, Revised 30 May 72) are given the PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN.

Steps 1 to 9 of the PCRD (per HCO B 30 March 72, Revised 30 May 72) are paid for by the pc quite in addition to his Primary Rundown.

IF available auditors exist on Course of a proper class and the pc is a student then these steps I to 9 PCRD may be done on a co-audit basis. BUT IF NOT WELL DONE OR MESSED UP OR DELAYED MUST BE DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR AT THE STUDENT’S OWN EXPENSE.

A STAFF MEMBER stalled on the Primary Rundown is put through the PCRD in Qual or Qual and HGC for different steps.

Qualifications is the Correction Division. PCRD is a Correction action. There should be word clearers in Qual. And these as Class IIIs should be competent to do steps I to 9 of the PCRD.

The object of a PCRD is not to stall the person and keep him off the PRD.

The purpose of the PCRD is to get the person through the PRD.

Where people have been put off the PRD for any reason and are not industriously going through the PCRD IT IS UP TO QUAL TO MAKE SURE THEY DO GET THROUGH PCRD AND PRD.

Orgs that off load pcs or students on the thinnest excuses or Qual Divisions that will not service and speed the lines have to be watched as the discovery of trouble on the PRD can be used to simply halt the student or pc. Instead of picking up the ball, a Qual has been known to just send students back to class without handling or put students to “doing their hats” or other nonsense.

The idea is to complete somebody on what they are supposed to complete.

FOLDER STUDY

If you study the person’s folder, particularly a staff member’s, you will probably find that several of the steps 1 to 9 have already been done.

These are checked off as done on the PCRD checklist.

Any org that is worthy of the name has folder summaries in the inside left-hand cover of the current folder. It is very easy to locate what have been done.

OUT LISTS

It is not at all rare to find that various “whys have been found” but that the person is not doing well. This is a case of WRONG ITEMS and is handled by C/S Series 78. Thus steps I, 2, 3 and 6 of the PCRD may consist mainly of correcting botched up lists.

IDLE STUDENT

The problem of putting someone off the PRD onto the PCRD is that he is now “idle as a student”. He cannot go forward on his studies as he has not done his PRD.

In fact going on studying without the PRD is a waste of time as it’s mainly misunderstood, glib and won’t be applied. It is actually faster to do a PRD (or a PCRD) and then study than it is to study without the PRD or PCRD. And it is certainly far more effective.

The thing to do is to get the student who is assigned to the PCRD through the PCRD.

As noted above he may have several points already done. And the rest can be done easily and fast.

RESISTIVE STUDENTS

There are situations where you have students or even executives who will not even go to study.

These are of course people who need the PCRD worst.

But how to get them available even for that?

In the case of a senior executive who will not study you can get a disarrangement of the study lines as they won’t push and will even impede study—for instance by not making staff go to study time or preventing them from going. Also policy and HCO Bs fall out or are not enforced and form of org is not held since reading and study are similar actions so standard actions are not known.

Naturally such a thing has to be handled very fast.

Because cooperation from such a student is VERY limited, time to do a whole PCRD is not possible.

PRE-PCRD

There is a PRE-PCRD action that handles this.

It has 2 steps.

A. Assess Method 5 C/S 53RC. Take the LFBD item and INDICATE it to the person. Don’t handle it or the rest of 53RC. Just Indicate it to the pc. He will usually agree and cognite. The TA will come down further and the needle will float. That’s it.

B. Now take the Study Correction List. Assess it Method 5. Pick out the biggest LFBD you got. Indicate it to the pc. He will cognite, the TA will drop down and an F/N will occur. That’s it.

C. Put these 2 sheets in his pc folder for full handling of all reads by his auditor and add them to the pc’s auditing program sheet inside the left front cover of the pc’s folder.

The result will often be magical. The person will become more agreeable about study or the Primary Correction Rundown.

Of course they should now get a Primary Correction Rundown of which C/S 53RC is the first step anyway.

This Pre-PCRD gets them started. And it only takes a little while.

The End Phenomena of a Primary Correction Rundown is “Can he now quickly and easily do the Primary Rundown?” If yes, and if it works out in practice that he can, that’s it. Let him onto the Primary RD. But if he bogs, back to the PCRD.

MORAL

The moral of this HCO B is get them through the Primary Rundown. If they can’t or don’t go, do the PCRD. And if they’re shunted to the PCRD get it DONE. And get them to the real EP which is SUPER LITERACY. The moral is, get them through. Don’t idle about. Get it DONE.

Then they will whizz along on fast flow study and you’ve got COMPLETIONS.

This Correction List is first assessed throughout on the Meter with all reads and blowdowns properly noted (Method 5). It is then handled by taking up any Section I (rudiment type question) that read (ARC Brk, PTP, W/H). Thereafter it is handled on the basis of biggest reads first, then smaller reads until each read has been F/Ned by doing the action called for under the Question.

Clear all words before assessment.

Put in “R-Factor”: “We are going to go over a list of possible study troubles. I am going to call out the question to see if it reacts on the Meter. Then after this action is done, we will take up the items one by one that were found to be active. You need not say anything during this assessment of the list.

1A. HAS THERE BEEN AN UPSET ABOUT STUDY? _________ Fly all ruds triple “In study has there been _____ ?”

1B. HAVE THERE BEEN UPSETS IN GETTING WORDS CLEARED UP? _________ W/C Corr List and handle.

1C. HAVE YOU BEEN UPSET BY EARLIER STUDY REPAIRS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1D. DO YOU FEEL THAT IT WON’T DO ANY GOOD TO TRY TO HANDLE STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1E. HAVE THERE BEEN UPSETS IN STUDY? _________ L1C “On study _____” each reading item to F/N.

1F. DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK WITH ANOTHER STUDENT? _________Triple “Do you have an ARC/B with another student” to F/N.Flow 2 “Does another student have an ARC/B with you” to F/N.Flow 3 “Does another have an ARC/B with another or other students” to F/N.

1G. DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK WITH AN EXAMINER? _________Triple “Do you have an ARC/B with an Examiner” to F/N.Flow 2 “Does an Examiner have an ARC/B with you” to F/N.Flow 3 “Does another have an ARC/B with an Examiner” to F/N.

1H. DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK WITH A COURSE? _________Triple “Do you have an ARC/B with a course” to F/N.Flow 2 “Does another have an ARC/B with a course” to F/N.Flow 3 “Do others have an ARC/B with a course” to F/N.

1I. HAVE YOU HAD A PTP WHILE STUDYING? _________Triple “Have you had a PTP while studying” to F/N.Flow 2 “Has another had a PTP while studying” to F/N.Flow 3 “Have others had a PTP while studying” to F/N.

1J. IS STUDY A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM? _________ What problem, 2wc E/S problem to F/N.

1K. IS A SUBJECT MAKING A PROBLEM THAT DIDN’T EXIST? _________ What problem, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1L. DO YOU HAVE A W/H FROM A SUPERVISOR? _________What, who missed it, what was his action that made youthink he knew, E/S W/H to F/N.Flow 2 “Does a Supervisor have a W/H from you” to F/N.Flow 3 “Do others have a W/H from a Supervisor” to F/N.

1M. DO YOU HAVE A W/H FROM A STUDENT? _________Handle as in 1L.Flow 2 “Does a student have a W/H from you” to F/N.Flow 3 “Does another have a W/H from a student” to F/N.

1N. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED OVERTS ON A TEACHER OR SUPERVISOR? _________Triple “What overt has a teacher or Supervisor committed on you” E/S to F/N.Flow 2 “What overt have you committed on a teacher or Supervisor” E/S to F/N.Flow 3 “What overts have others committed on teachers or Supervisors” E/S to F/N.

1O. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED OVERTS ON STUDENTS? _________Triple “What overts have students committed on you” E/S to F/N.Flow 2 “What overts have you committed on students” E/S to F/N.Flow 3 “What overts have others committed on students” E/S to F/N.

1P. HAVE YOU EVER LIED TO A TEACHER? _________Triple “What lie has a teacher told to you” E/S to F/N. Flow 2 “What lie have you told to a teacher” E/S to F/N. Flow 3 “What lies have others told to a teacher” E/S to F/N.

1W. HAVE YOU OMITTED DOING PARTS OF A CHECKSHEET? _________ What, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1X. HAVE YOU GIVEN ANOTHER STUDENT A FALSE PASS? _________ Who, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1Y. HAVE YOU PASSED A CHECKOUT, TEST OR EXAM FALSELY? _________ What, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1Z. ARE YOU FALSIFYING YOUR STUDY STATS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1AA. ARE YOU NOT REALLY TRYING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

Note: Take up the above Section 1 questions and clean up each one to F/N. The remainder of the list is done by biggest reads first. The whole assessment may be done before taking up any Q. But if the student is misemotional do Section 1 above, handle, then assess the remainder of the list and handle.

1BB. IN STUDY HAS THERE BEEN ANY MISREPRESENTATION? _________ What, by whom, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1CC. IN STUDY HAS THERE BEEN ANY NON-INVOLVEMENT? _________ What, by whom, 2wc E/S to F/N.

1DD. ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE WITH YOUR STUDY TWIN? _________ Mutual ruds “Do you have an ARC/B with_____” “Does _____have an ARC/B with you” “Do you have a problem with_____” “Does _____have a problem with you” “Do you have a W/H from _____” “Does _____have a W/H from you” “Have you committed an overt on_____” “Has _____committed an overt on you”(In extreme cases showing misemotion on this add to PTS R/D (a).) In case of “No study twin” as the answer, do only 2wc E/S to F/N.

1EE. HAS THERE BEEN NO ONE TO SUPERVISE YOUR STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1FF. HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS NOT BEEN ANSWERED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1GG. DID THE SUPERVISOR NOT SEEM TO CARE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1HH. DID NO ONE SHOW ANY INTEREST IN YOUR PROGRESS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1JJ. HAVE YOU NOT BEEN GIVEN WHAT WAS PROMISED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

1MM. ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE WITH YOUR AUDITING? _________ What, 2wc E/S to F/N. If it’s Lists, do an L4BR and handle. If this Q reads, note it for C/S.

2A. HAS THERE BEEN A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD? _________ Find it, get it looked up and corrected.

2B. HAVE THERE BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD SUBJECTS? _________ Give person Word Clear M1 or get the W/C M1 already done with the missing subjects added to the W/C M1 Standard C/S.

2C. HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS BEEN NOT-ISED? _________ Find it, get it looked up and corrected, each one found.

2D. ARE THERE PARTIAL MISUNDERSTOODS? _________ Find them, get them looked up and corrected.

2E. ARE YOU READING OR STUDYING SOMETHING APART FROM YOUR COURSE MATERIALS THAT YOU MISUNDERSTAND? _________ What, find the m/u/stoods, get them looked up and corrected.

2F. DO YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTOOD FROM AN EARLIER STUDIED SUBJECT? _________ Handle as in 2B.

2G. DID YOU SUBSTITUTE A WORD? _________ Find the original word, handle it as a misunderstood.

2H. COULDN’T YOU SEE HOW IT COULD BE THAT WAY? _________ Find the m/u/stoods, get them looked up and used in sentences.

2I. DID YOU STOP YOUR STUDY OF A SUBJECT AT SOME POINT? _________ Handle as in 2B.

2J. WERE THERE TECHNICAL TERMS WITH NO EXPLANATION AVAILABLE? _________ Find them, get them looked up and used in sentences.

2K. DID THE SAME WORD MEAN SOMETHING ELSE IN ANOTHER SUBJECT? _________ Find it, handle as a misunderstood word in both subjects by getting the word used with the definition of each subject.

2L. HAVE YOU STUDIED AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE SUBJECT? Handle as in 2B.

2M. HAVE YOU MEMORIZED DATA WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT? _________ What, find and handle the misunderstoods.

2N. IS THERE A DEFINITION YOU DISAGREE WITH? _________ Get off the disagreement by 2wc, then when cooled off, find and handle the misunderstood connected with it.

20. IS THERE A NAME OR TITLE OF SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH? _________ Handle as in 2N.

2P. WERE THE NAMES OR TITLES GIVEN THINGS IN A SUBJECT MEANINGLESS? _________ What, 2wc to F/N, looking for any misunderstood also.

2Q. HAS THERE BEEN AN INCORRECT DEFINITION? _________ What, get off any disagreement, then get it defined correctly and used in sentences to F/N.

2R. WERE YOU NOT ABLE TO FIND A DEFINITION? _________ What, handle it as a misunderstood.

2S. DO YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE INCOMPLETE CHECKSHEET? _________ Find the earliest one, find and handle the misunderstoods connected with it. Do the same with each incomplete checksheet up to the latest one.

2T. DO YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS IN THE SUBJECTS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY? _________ Remedy A, then W/C M2 on earliest materials read or heard in Dn and Scn.

2U. ARE YOU HAVING ANY TROUBLE STUDYING DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY? _________ Remedy B, then handle as in 2B.

2V. HAVE YOU FAILED TO COMPLETE COURSES YOU TOOK? _________ 2wc “Tell me about courses you have failed to complete” E/S to F/N. Followed by W/C M 1 actions on courses named.

2W. DO YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTOOD SYMBOL? _________ Find it, get it looked up and corrected. Then check for any more misunderstood symbols and handle.

3A. HAVE THE BASICS OF A SUBJECT BEEN OMITTED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3B. HAVE STUDY MATERIALS BEEN UNAVAILABLE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3C. HAS THERE BEEN NO TRAINING AVAILABLE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3D. HAVE COURSE MATERIALS BEEN MISSING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3E. HAVE YOU BEEN TRYING TO STUDY A LOST TECHNOLOGY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3F. DID THE MATERIAL OF A SUBJECT NOT CONTAIN HOW YOU DO IT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3G. ARE YOU STUDYING WITH NO PROGRAM? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3H. ARE YOU GETTING NOWHERE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, be alert for misunderstoods.

3I. DO YOU HAVE NO STUDY TWIN? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3J. WAS THE SUBJECT OF NO USE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, be alert for misunderstoods.

3K. DID THE SUBJECT HAVE NO APPLICATION? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3L. HAS STUDY NOT LED TO A FINITE RESULT? _________ What subject, look for m/u/stoods in it and handle.

3M. HAVE THERE BEEN INSUFFICIENT TERMS TO DIFFERENTIATE ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3N. HAVE YOU NOT HAD ANY REASON TO STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, be alert to any natter and pull the M/W/Hs.

30. HAVE YOU FAILED TO ACHIEVE A STUDY TARGET? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3P. WAS THE DOINGNESS CONVERTED TO SIGNIFICANCE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3Q. WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE DETACHED FROM THE ACTION? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3R. WAS IT ALL DOINGNESS AND NO SIGNIFICANCE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

3S. HAS THERE BEEN NO MASS WITH THE SIGNIFICANCE? _________ With what piece of data, scout for any m/u/stood word, handle. Then get the data demonstrated in the session—use a demo kit. 2wc it as needed.

3T. WAS IT TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND NO DOINGNESS? _________ Handle as in 3S.

3U. HAVE YOU BEEN STUDYING SOMETHING WITH ITS MASS ABSENT? _________ Handle as in 3S.

3V. WAS THE MASS OF THE SUBJECT NOT AVAILABLE TO STUDY? _________ Handle as in 3S.

4A. WAS THE GRADIENT TOO STEEP? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4B. DID YOU SKIP A GRADIENT? _________ 2wc to find the m/u/stood word around the area Pc was studying when he was last doing well and handle.

4C. HAVE YOU STUDIED SOMETHING ON THE WRONG GRADIENT? _________ Find out if too steep, if so, handle as in 4A. If too shallow 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4D. DID YOU GO ON TO A MORE ADVANCED ACTION BEFORE ABLE TO HANDLE THE EARLIER ONE? _________ Find the earlier one, then find the misunderstood word and handle.

4E. HAS THERE BEEN A WRONG EMPHASIS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

4F. DID YOU HAVE TO LEARN TOO MANY OTHER THINGS BEFORE YOU COULD LEARN WHAT YOU WANTED TO? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4G. WAS A SUBJECT RELAYED TO YOU OVER TOO LONG A PERIOD? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

4H. DID YOU STUDY A SUBJECT FOR A LONG LONG TIME? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, handle any m/u/stood found.

4I. IS YOUR STUDY PROGRAM INCORRECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4J. WAS THE ORDER OF ACTION INCORRECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4K. DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD TO STUDY TOO MUCH TOO FAST? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4L. DO YOU HAVE TOO MUCH TO DO? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4M. HAVE THE TERMS USED IN A SUBJECT BEEN CHANGED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4N. HAVE YOU NEVER STUDIED THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF A SUBJECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

40. HAVE RELATIVE IMPORTANCES NOT BEEN EVALUATED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, look for misunderstoods and handle.

4P. HAS THERE BEEN A LACK OF THE RELATIVE APPLICABILITY OF THE DATA? _________ Handle as in 40.

4Q. HAVE YOU STUDIED THE SAME SUBJECT MORE THAN ONCE? _________ “Why did you have to study the same subject more than once” 2wc E/S to F/N.

4R. DIDN’T YOU KNOW HOW TO STUDY A SUBJECT? _________ What subject, find and handle misunderstood words.

4S. DID YOU ALREADY HAVE TO BE AN EXPERT IN ORDER TO STUDY SOME SUBJECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

4T. DID YOU KNOW ALL THERE WAS TO KNOW? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

4U. DID YOU THINK YOU KNEW ALL ABOUT IT BUT COULDN’T APPLY IT AND GET RESULTS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any inval.

4V. DID YOU STUDY WITH FIXED OPINIONS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

4W. DID YOU ALREADY KNOW ALL ABOUT IT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any inval.

5A. WAS A SUBJECT’S PURPOSE NOT DESCRIBED? _________ What subject, find and clear its purpose. If it doesn’t have a purpose, prepcheck it to F/N.

5B. DID YOU NOT BELIEVE A SUBJECT’S PURPOSE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

5C. WAS A SUBJECT’S PURPOSE NOT REAL TO YOU? _________ Find and handle the misunderstoods on it.

5D. WAS THE PURPOSE OF A SUBJECT NOT ATTAINABLE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

5E. WAS THE PURPOSE OF A SUBJECT NOT UNDERSTOOD? _________ Handle as in 5C.

5F. IS YOUR PURPOSE IN STUDYING A SUBJECT CONFLICTING WITH THE SUPERVISOR’S OR THE SUBJECT’S PURPOSE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. (Note well for Ex Dn C/S to Pgm E/Purp handling or upper level C/S to Pgm for L9S as case may R/S.)

5G. DID THE STUDY OF A SUBJECT NOT END UP IN A DOINGNESS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

5H. WERE YOU NEVER REQUIRED TO DO THE DOINGNESS OF A SUBJECT? _________ Handle as in 5G.

5I. DID YOU STUDY WITHOUT APPLYING THE SUBJECT TO LIFE? _________ 2wc on how the subject applies or can be applied to life.

5J. HAVE YOU HAD TO STUDY SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEVER NEED TO APPLY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

6A. HAVE YOU PRETENDED TO HAVE STUDIED THINGS YOU HADN’T? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

6B. HAVE YOU PRETENDED TO HAVE QUALIFICATIONS YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY ATTAIN? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

6C. HAVE YOU STUDIED A TECHNOLOGY THAT PRETENDED TO DO SOMETHING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

6D. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO KNOW A SUBJECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

6E. ARE YOU JUST PRETENDING TO STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get why.

6F. HAVE YOU STUDIED JUST TO LEARN A FEW GIMMICKS? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

6G. WERE YOU REALLY STUDYING ONLY TO PASS AN EXAM? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get why.

6H. DID YOU HAVE SOME UNDISCLOSED REASON FOR STUDYING A SUBJECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N (Note well for Ex Dn C/S to Pgm for E/Purp handling or upper level C/S to Pgm for L9S as case may R/S.)

6I. DID YOU HAVE TO PRETEND YOU KNEW IT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get why. (In extreme cases showing misemotion on this note any names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.)

7A. DID THE MATERIALS CONTAIN INCORRECT DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

7B. HAVE YOU STUDIED A FALSE TECHNOLOGY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

7C. WAS THE DATA INCORRECT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

7D. HAVE YOU BEEN STUDYING SOMETHING THAT WAS FALSE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

7E. IN STUDY HAS ANYONE TAUGHT OR GIVEN YOU FALSE DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest. (In extreme cases showing misemotion on this note any names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.)

7F. WERE YOU NOT TAUGHT THE ESSENTIALS OF A SUBJECT NECESSARY TO GETTING IT APPLIED? _________ Handle as in 7E by getting who.

7G. WERE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO OBSERVE, UNDERSTAND AND DO? _________ Handle as in 7E by getting who.

7H. DID THE DATA NOT APPLY IN PT? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, get off any protest.

7I. DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE NAME BUT NOT THE THING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, be alert for any misunderstood word connected with it and handle.

7J. WAS IT TOO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT EVERYONE BELIEVES? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

7K. WOULD SOMEONE ELSE WIN IF YOU BECAME EDUCATED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. (In extreme cases showing misemotion on this note any names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.)

7L. WOULD KNOWLEDGE MAKE YOU TOO POWERFUL? _________ Run (1) “What have you done with knowledge” (2) “What have you withheld”. Alternate repetitive. (Note well for Ex Dn C/S to Pgm for E/Purp handling or upper level C/S to Pgm for L9S as case may R/S.)

7N. DO YOU HAVE DISAGREEMENTS IN STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Then 2wc E/S to F/N “Tell me about things you agree with in study”.

70. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Then “Tell me about data you agree with” 2wc E/S to F/N.

7P. DO YOU INVALIDATE YOURSELF IN STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N, followed by “Tell me about confusion that came before that” 2wc E/S to F/N.

7Q. DID YOU INVALIDATE A DATUM? Handle as in 7P.

7R. HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN ABLE TO APPLY DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. The C/S Pgms W/C M1 or gets the W/C M1 already done, redone adding any subjects Pc mentions in the 2wc, after this List EPs.

7S. ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF FINANCIALLY WHILE STUDYING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

7T. DIDN’T YOU DARE BELIEVE IT WAS THAT WAY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

7U. WAS IT UNBELIEVABLE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

7V. HAVE YOU CONTINUED TO STUDY A SUBJECT YOU HAD ALREADY GRASPED? _________ Find the point of win. Rehab it. (Upper level Auditor, date to blow—locate to blow point of win.)

7W. IN STUDY HAS SOMETHING BEEN OVERRUN? _________ Handle as in 7V.

8A. ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT? _________ Environment Remedy B.

8B. IS YOUR ATTENTION ON SOMETHING IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT? _________ Handle as in 8A.

8C. IS THERE A PARTICULAR SUBJECT YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH? _________ What, Remedy B New Style on it.

8D. ARE YOU TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH STUDY? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “What are you trying to do with study”. (Upper level Auditor, date to blow—locate to blow item.)

8E. ARE YOU TRYING TO SOLVE SOME MYSTERY? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “What mystery are you trying to solve”. (Upper level Auditor, date to blow—locate to blow item.)

8F. ARE YOU TRYING TO FORGET SOMETHING? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “What are you trying to forget”. (Upper level Auditor, date to blow—locate to blow item.)

8G. HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED FOR STATUS? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “Who or what would study for status”. O/W on item to F/N.

8H. IS THERE SOMEONE WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “Who will benefit from your knowledge”. O/W on item to F/N.

8I. IS THERE A SUBJECT THAT SHOULDN’T BE STUDIED? _________ L&N to BD F/N item “What subject shouldn’t be studied”. O/W on item to F/N.

8J. IS THERE A SUBJECT YOU DISAGREE WITH? _________ What. L&N to BD F/N item “On____what do you disagree with”. Then run “What part of that disagreement could you be responsible for?” repetitive to F/N.

8K. HAVE YOU FELT STUPID ABOUT A SUBJECT? _________ 2wc to find what subject, what confusion existed just before that, find what was misunderstood at that time and clear it. Go E/S to F/N if required.

9A. HAVE YOU BEEN TAUGHT BY SOMEONE YOU DIDN’T LIKE OR HATED? _________ L&N “Who has tried to teach you that you didn’t like” and L&N “Who have you taught that you didn’t like” and L&N “Who has taught others that they didn’t like”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9B. HAS ANYONE EVER CONSIDERED THAT YOU WERE STUPID? _________ L&N “Who has considered you stupid (or mentally retarded)” and L&N “Whom have you considered stupid” and L&N “Who has considered others stupid”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9C. DID SOMEBODY MAKE YOU FEEL STUPID FOR NOT KNOWING IT? _________ L&N “Who has made you feel stupid” and L&N “Who have you made feel stupid” and L&N “Who has made others feel stupid”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9D. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVALIDATED BY AN AUTHORITY OF A SUBJECT? _________ L&N “Who has invalidated you” and L&N “Who have you invalidated” and L&N “Who has invalidated others”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9E. HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO STUDY? _________ L&N “Who has told you you don’t know” and L&N “Who have you told he doesn’t know” and L&N “Who has told others they don’t know”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9F. WERE YOU TOO EMBARRASSED TO FIND OUT? _________ L&N “Who has embarrassed you” and L&N “Who have you embarrassed” and L&N “Who has embarrassed others”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9G. HAS SOMEBODY TRIED TO CORRECT YOUR STUDY WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG? _________ L&N “Who tried to correct you when there was nothing wrong” and L&N “Who did you try to correct when there was nothing wrong” and L&N “Who tried to correct others when there was nothing wrong”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9H. WERE YOU MADE TO FEEL INCOMPETENT? _________ L&N “Who has made you feel incompetent” and L&N “Who have you made feel incompetent” and L&N “Who has made others feel incompetent”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9I. HAS A WIN BEEN INVALIDATED? _________ L&N “Who has invalidated your wins” and L&N “Whose wins have you invalidated” and L&N “Who has invalidated others’ wins”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9J. WERE YOU MADE TO FEEL UNCONFIDENT? _________ L&N “Who has made you feel unconfident” and L&N “Who have you made feel unconfident” and L&N “Who has made others feel unconfident”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9K. WOULD YOU HAVE LOWERED YOUR STATUS IF YOU ADMITTED YOU DIDN’T REALLY KNOW? _________ L&N “Who have you not wanted present when your status was lowered” and L&N “Who did not want you present when his status was lowered” and L&N “Who have others not wanted present when their status was lowered”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9L. HAS SOMEONE EVALUATED AND GIVEN YOU THE WRONG ORDER OF IMPORTANCES? _________ L&N “Who has evaluated for you” and L&N “Who have you evaluated for” and L&N “Who has evaluated for others”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9M. HAVE YOU BEEN INVALIDATED FOR STUDYING IT? _________ Handle as in 9D.

9N. WAS A SUBJECT TAUGHT TO YOU SUPPRESSIVELY? _________ L&N “Who has taught you suppressively” and L&N “Who have you taught suppressively” and L&N “Who has taught others suppressively”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

90. HAS SOMEONE TOLD YOU YOU CAN’T STUDY? _________ L&N “Who has told you you can’t study” and L&N “Who have you told he can’t study” and L&N “Who has told others they can’t study”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9P. WAS A SUBJECT MADE TOO DANGEROUS TO DO? _________ L&N “Who made something too dangerous for you” and L&N “Who did you make something too dangerous for” and L&N “Who made something too dangerous for others”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9Q. DID YOU HAVE TO LEARN THINGS YOU WOULD NEVER DO? _________ L&N “Who made you learn things you would never do” and L&N “Who have you made learn things he would never do” and L&N “Who has made others learn things they would never do”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9R. WERE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO COMPLETE A COURSE OF STUDY? _________ L&N “Who has not allowed you to complete something” and L&N “Who have you not allowed to complete something” and L&N “Who has not allowed others to complete something”. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

9S. WAS IT ALL CHANGED AFTER YOU LEARNED HOW TO DO IT? _________ Handle as in 9R.

10A. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU WOULDN’T LEARN? _________R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate an incident when you were punished because you wouldn’t learn.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when you were punished because you wouldn’t learn?”Flow 2: “Locate an incident when you punished another because he wouldn’t learn.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when you punished another because he wouldn’t learn?”Flow 3: “Locate an incident when another punished others because they wouldn’t learn.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another punished others because they wouldn’t learn?”

10B. HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN IN TROUBLE BECAUSE YOU KNEW SOMETHING? _________

R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate an incident when another got you in trouble because you knew something.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another got you in trouble because you knew something?”Flow 2: “Locate an incident when you got another in trouble because he knew something.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when you got another in trouble because he knew something?”Flow 3: “Locate an incident when another got others in trouble because they knew something.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another got in trouble because they knew something?”

10C. DO YOU TRY TO GET OUT OF CLASSROOMS OR SCHOOLS? _________R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate a time when you were made to go to school or class.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier time when you were made to go to school or class?”Flow 2: “Locate a time when you made someone go to school or class.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier time when you made someone go to school or class?”Flow 3: “Locate a time when another made others go to school or class.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier time another made others go to school or class?”

10D. HAVE YOU BEEN FORCED TO BE EDUCATED? _________ Do a full Student Rescue Intensive using “Be educated”.

10E. HAVE YOU BEEN FORCED TO BE TRAINED? _________ Do a full Student Rescue Intensive using “Be trained”.

10F. HAVE YOU BEEN FORCED TO LEARN? _________ Do a full Student Rescue Intensive using “learn”.

10G. HAVE YOU BEEN FORCED TO STUDY? _________ Do a full Student Rescue Intensive using “study”.

10H. WAS THE SUBJECT OVERWHELMING? _________R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate a time when someone or something overwhelmed you.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier time when someone or something overwhelmed you?”Flow 2: “Locate a time when you overwhelmed someone or something.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier time when you overwhelmed someone or something?”Flow 3: “Locate a time when someone or something overwhelmed others.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when someone or something overwhelmed others?”

10I. WERE YOU INVALIDATED BY AN EXAMINATION FAILURE? _________R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate an incident when another invalidated you with an examination failure.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another invalidated you with an examination failure?”Flow 2: “Locate an incident when you invalidated another with an examination failure.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when you invalidated another with an examination failure?”Flow 3: “Locate an incident when another invalidated another or others with an examination failure.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another invalidated another or others with an examination failure?”

10J. DO YOU GET ANXIOUS OR MISEMOTIONAL ABOUT EXAMS? _________R3R Narrative TripleFlow 1: “Locate a time when another caused you to be misemotional about exams.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another caused you to be misemotional about exams?”Flow 2: “Locate a time when you caused another to be misemotional about exams.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when you caused another to be misemotional about exams?”Flow 3: “Locate a time when another caused another or others to be misemotional about exams.” Going earlier: “Is there an earlier incident when another caused another or others to be misemotional about exams?”

10K. HAVE EXAMINATIONS NOT BEEN IN LINE WITH THE DATA STUDIED? _________ Handle as in 10J, or 2wc E/S to F/N if 10J already handled.

11A. DO YOU HAVE BAD EYESIGHT OR EYESTRAIN? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. C/S Pgms for Effort Processing and Rising Scale. (Upper level C/S & Pgms, if this persists, L10.)

11B. CAN’T YOU CONFRONT BOOKS OR PRINTED PAGES? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Note what pc can’t confront so C/S can Pgm TR 0 on it for 2 hours.

11C. ARE YOU PROTESTING HAVING YOUR STUDY REPAIRED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

11D. ARE YOU UPSET ABOUT THIS STUDY REPAIR? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

11E. ARE YOU TOO PHYSICALLY UPSET TO STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Refer to Registrar for case handling or treatment.

11I. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN A SUBJECT WELL AND THEN HAD YOUR PASS OR TRAINING INVALIDATED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Get off any protest. (In extreme cases showing any misemotion on this, note any names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.)

11J. HAVE YOU EVER FALSELY ATTESTED TO A COM- PLETION WHEN YOU HAD NOT REALLY PASSED? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

11K. HAS THERE BEEN NO STUDY? _________ L&N “W/W would prevent study?” Note item for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

11L. IS IT DANGEROUS TO STUDY? _________ Why? 2wc E/S to F/N.

11M. HAS THERE BEEN LACK OF TIME TO STUDY? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

11N. HAS THERE BEEN INCORRECT SEQUENCE OF STUDY DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

11O. IN A SUBJECT HAS THERE BEEN OMITTED DATA? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

12A. ARE YOU CONNECTED TO SOMEONE WHO IS ANTAGONISTIC TO SCIENTOLOGY? _________ PTS R/D and handle PT connection through Ethics.

12B. IS SOMEONE CAUSING YOU ENTURBULATION? _________ L&N “Who has caused you enturbulation” “Who have you caused enturbulation” “Who has caused others enturbulation”. Handle any PT connection through Ethics. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

12C. IS SOMEONE TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM BEING MORE ABLE? _________ L&N “Who has tried to stop you from being more able” “Who have you tried to stop from being more able” “Who have others tried to stop from being more able”. Handle any PT connection through Ethics. Note items for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

12D. WOULD SOMEONE CAUSE TROUBLE IF THEY KNEW WHAT YOU ARE DOING? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Handle any PTS situation through Ethics. If PTS situation evident note any names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

12E. HAS SOMEONE SAID YOU SHOULDN’T BE HERE? _________ 2wc E/S to F/N. Handle any PTS situation through Ethics. If PTS situation evident, note names mentioned and their reads for C/S to Pgm for full PTS R/D.

13A. THERE IS SOME OTHER REASON NOT GIVEN. _________ 2wc E/S to F/N.

13B. THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING WRONG WITH STUDY IN THE FIRST PLACE. _________ Indicate to pc.

13C. REPAIRING STUDY WAS AN UNNECESSARY ACTION. _________ Indicate to pc. Rehab when he felt okay about study.

He cannot confront the physical universe or people around him and so cannot apply.

He does not see Mest or people.

The reason for this is that he is below non-existence on one or more dynamics and so cannot align with the others.

As a spirit or being in a body he has no past or future and so is just a social machine.

Getting him up the dynamics by conditions by “Conditions by Dynamics”, HCO PL 4 April 72 (Establishment Officer Series 14), fourth page, having him do general confronting and do TR Courses the Hard Way and having him run on the Objective Processes cures this condition. It takes a lot of work, a lot of auditing but it can be cured.

Unless it is fully handled he will never see enough more than the paper and words to be more than a glib student who cannot apply.

There are several choices in English on the meaning of “confront”. These include the right one: To face without flinching or avoiding. An example in a sentence: “The test of a free society is its capacity to confront rather than evade the vital questions of Choice.”

There is another meaning “To stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation.”

English is a pretty limited language in many ways. I imagine the thought of facing something (which is what the word came from and originally meant way back—”fron” being “face”) was so horrifying to the types who write dictionaries they knew it would be bad!

In essence it is an action of being able to face.

If one cannot, if he avoids, then he is not AWARE.

Awareness is the ability to perceive the existence of. In the dictionary it also fails to confront that and says “Awareness: the quality or state of being aware.” And Aware means: “marked by realization, perception or knowledge.”

So these chaps couldn’t confront and so conceived awareness to be figure-figure.

We are moving out of the range of language when we want to say:

“He could stand up to things and wasn’t always shrinking back into himself and avoiding, so he could be fully conscious of the real universe and others around him.”

And that’s what Confront means.

If one can confront he can be aware.

If he is aware he can perceive and act.

If he can’t confront he will not be aware of things and will be withdrawn and not perceiving. Thus he is unaware of things around him.

The tape original is made, a copy master is made and thereafter copies can be run off for courses which can be attended by students, using only excellent tape copies and excellent reproduction equipment, and listened to with high fidelity earphones. Word Clearing Technology is used to prevent the student losing interest because of misunderstood words.

The tape players used must be equipped with a foot pedal start-stop control.

The voice of the “sight” translator should be clear and the diction should be sharp and the tone should not be monotonous.

A “sight” translator is one equally good in 2 languages who can hear one language and speak the translation into the other language without hesitation. (They are employed in the UN.)

The material copied onto tapes can also be broken down into smaller reels for independent study.

By taking exact notes of the ‘‘auditing commands” and important rules the student will have the texts he needs for later reference.

The exact rundown of this is given:

In translating the materials of a course from a textbook or materials in one language to another, the following steps are taken.

PRIMARY TARGETS:

1. A person fully competent in both the languages and their cultures is found and retained.

2. The materials to be translated are made available.

3. A tape recorder which can be started and stopped easily without leaving clicks on the tape is procured. (Not a dictation machine.)

4. An adequate supply of regular recording tape is made available.

5. Other materials such as paper and ball-points are made available.

6. A quiet place where interruptions and outside noises will not ruin the tapes is found and the person is set up there.

7. A person knowledgeable in the subject and the language in which the original is written is retained and assists the translator.

OPERATING TARGETS:

1. The translator (using Word Clearing Technology and a dictionary to clear up any misunderstoods) rapidly reads or goes through the materials to get a general grasp of the subject.

2. The technical assistant who knows the subject and the original language now goes through the materials with the translator. Every technical word or phrase or cultural idiom is underlined.

3. While underlining, the two persons decide on the correct translation of the technical word or phrase.

4. As these are decided, they are written down on note paper with a complete definition.

5. Each word, phrase and definition is translated into the language and written down on a separate sheet of paper.

6. The translated words, phrases and definitions will become a mimeographed glossary for the eventual student.

7. Each section and paragraph in the material is numbered.

8. With this glossary to hand, the translator now begins direct translation of the text onto tape. The number of the tape and its materials is given at the beginning of each tape used or new chapter begun.

9. The translator must be sure to read the materials in an interested voice and not let any hesitation or note of mystery creep in. The translator is actually lecturing and must sound so.

10. When the materials are complete, good production masters are copied off of the master tape. The master tape is set aside and not used further.

11. The production master is now cut into chapter lengths which are numbered the same as the book chapters.

12. Several sets of the Chapter Copies are now made and put in their boxes. Both tracks can be used. Even 4 tracks (not stereo) can be used.

13. The glossary in both the original language and the translated language is printed up along with course directions (which are described in another technical paper). The checksheet and course rules are also translated and printed in the local language.

14. The course is boxed in sets with the glossary and course directions.

Following this system one can rapidly produce sets of materials without the delays always experienced in printing as well as with cost reduction.

The tapes are listened to on individual tape players equipped with earphones and a foot pedal start-stop control so the student’s hands are free for taking notes and looking up words in the dictionary, etc).

Learning rate in an aural society is much higher than in a society accustomed to print.

Even an illiterate person or a slow reader can be taught such a means.

A dictionary in the translated language must also be available in a classroom.

The quality of the translator’s voice and clear diction are highly desirable.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 1971Issue IRemimeo(Translateinto the IMPORTANTvariousLanguages)Tape Course Series 2

DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGYIN OTHER LANGUAGES(HCO Policy Letter of 11 May 1971Reissued as an HCO Bulletin)

Tapes and book translations of Dianetics and Scientology are being made into other languages than English.

It is necessary to know the MINIMUM materials an org in a non-English speaking country would need to function.

It is not enough to have one book published. It creates a demand for services. The demand for service must be met. An HAS Course in the language is not enough since it is not income producing. Thus the org could not survive financially. It must survive financially to deliver the service.

Even in a total socialism the service would have to be given.

Giving service depends on an org having the means of training auditors who can audit well and establishing the organization. Then the org could audit preclears as well as train more auditors.

If the auditors who are trained can audit well, they will produce excellent results and public repute will spread.

An org must produce to survive. By production is meant training auditors who can audit, auditing pcs to a good result and making money, or in a total socialism, obtaining adequate support in ratio to production.

If an org just teaches an HAS Course or tests people, it will not be able to survive for it will not be able to obtain enough funds or support. For this it is vital to train lots of auditors and audit lots of pcs.

Without its staff knowing the basic data of organization, the org will have difficulties in giving service. The technology of administration is important.

Thus we get the MINIMUM materials in the language vital to an org’s survival:

PRINTED MATERIAL

The book DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH printed with hard covers in the language is vital.

When members of the public read it and take an HAS Course they want training or processing or both.

This book placed in bookstores, advertised in magazines, and sold by Field Staff Members and the org itself not only reaches the public but also in hardcover form pays for its own distribution. As a paperback it does not pay for itself.

To this add testing materials printed in the language for intelligence and personality testing and their marking directions.

RECORDED TAPES

Recorded tapes and tape players in the org to play to individuals in classes is the easiest form in which to deliver data.

From such tapes students may take notes.

As time goes on the tapes will be transcribed and the material printed or mimeographed. (This is not to be done by the individual orgs.) It will be found however that tapes will always be necessary even when some is printed as the volume of data is very great.

Students should not be permitted to print copies of their notes and sell them as time has shown that such notes are not accurate enough and spread errors that show up in training and auditing failures.

In reviewing, a student must be sent back to the original, not to his notes, so he can correct his notes and get the data accurately.

Nearly all no-results are traced to altered data or poor training of the student, which amounts to the same thing.

The MINIMUM list of tapes is:

1. Mini Course Supervisor Hat

2. HAS Course

3. HDC Course

4. Academy Courses Levels 0 to IV

5. Original Thesis

6. Notes on the Lectures

7. Hat of a Scientologist

8. Staff Status I

9. Staff Status II

10. A Translated Org Bd

_________

Given these bare essentials and teaching them well and using them will give an org sufficient survival to deliver results.

If every bit of the above is known and used by a staff they will not have too much trouble.

Set up and functioning and solvent, an org can then think about further materials.

Class VI, a Class VII, a Class VIII and a Class IX Course materials on tape should exist in a Saint Hill org in the language of that country.

For the org itself a Volume Zero of the OEC Course should exist on tape.

After that the full Course Supervisor’s Course should exist.

Then further books such as Dianetics ‘55!, Science of Survival and The Creation of Human Ability should come out as tape and then in published hardcover form.

The full OEC should now be acquired on tape.

The full Study Tapes should be to hand.

The org will now be ready to use all the FEBC series and the FEBC tapes.

_________

The hardest idea for an org staff to get is the idea of production in terms of auditors trained who can audit, pcs audited to excellent results and money or support produced to keep the staff members and the org solvent.

Because of this it is best for 2 or more bilingual executives to attain full FEBC training.

However, with the above minimum materials fully studied and in use, an org can survive until it is ready to prosper.

_________

Note, at this writing many are working hard to complete the listed materials. They are not yet available in all languages.

There is only one other type of item needed by an org and that is the E-Meter. Supplies of these must be arranged for. A country running in very high volume will probably manufacture its own meters against an exact prototype under existing international patents.

ON SOURCE

It will be found in all countries where Dianetics and Scientology and orgs have been successful that a key part of the success was keeping the subject “on source”.

The public at once distrusts persons or groups who alter the materials or “use some of them” or attribute them to others. This is quite factual and the public is right.

All great and lasting successes have been made by orgs that were on source and whose materials were straight and correct and used that way.

(HCO Policy Letter of 6 December 1970,Issue II, Revised and Reissued as an HCOB.Changes in this type style.)

The instruction of students by tape is done by individual tape playbacks equipped with earphones and a foot pedal start-stop control.

It is imperative that the earphone quality be of the highest, and the tape copy have very good sound quality. Otherwise students go to sleep over misunderstood words.

The individual tape player method is used because (a) it can handle a large or small number of students, (b) it works where there is a trickle of students starting at different times, (c) it works where students studying subjects different from each other are using the same classroom. I t takes more tape players and must be earphone equipped but it prevents students going past misunderstoods as can occur if they are all listening to a group tape play.

The foot controlled start-stop pedal is necessary so the student can use his hands freely to take notes and look up words in the dictionary. It also enables the tape to be stopped instantly without the time lag it takes to reach for and push a finger button—thus going past the place where the stop is desired.

RULES & DESCRIPTION

Only the Glossary, course rules and checksheets, with course description are translated into the language being used for teaching and mimeographed or printed into small booklets.

The description must include how to handle tape players and caution against machine or tape damage and inadvertent erasure of a tape. (To guard against actual erasure it is wisest to tape over the record button or preferably, to have the recording unit disengaged. Also, it is sometimes possible to buy, at cheaper prices, playback units only (tape machines in which the recording unit hasn’t been installed). They must however be of good quality.

ENROLLMENT

Enrollment is done no matter how informal the course is. A waiver of accident or damage holding the school not responsible, must be signed by the student and, if a minor, by his parents or guardian on any tape course.

An enrollment invoice showing full course payment must be in the hands of the supervisor, giving the date of enrollment, home address and local address.

A roll book has every student’s name, address and the course enrolled in and date. This must not be omitted as it is the only permanent record and is often resorted to to prove contentions.

FILES

A student file system must exist. A folder with the student’s name on it and which will receive his completed checksheets, exam results, etc, must be made up at once.

CHECKSHEET

A checksheet for the course must exist, breaking the course down into small easily attained segments of Theory and Practical.

It must be in the student’s language.

It has blanks opposite each segment so that a student checkout can be initialed with date by the person checking him out.

NOTEBOOKS

A student is expected to keep a notebook from his tape listening. This should be neat and complete. The student never copies out the whole tape. He takes exact verbatim notes of any Process Commands or Lists and notes down also the important technical rules.

A sample notebook should be provided.

A student should leave frequent spaces so he can enter new notes on a second and third play of the materials.

CHECKOUT

Where only tapes exist and a checkout is required students check each other out from the actual tape, not from their notes.

“Give me an example,” is the keynote of such a checkout. (a) What is the , (b) Give me an example.

PRACTICAL

Each area of the course has demonstration and practical drills.

These drills must be written up and must match the basic personal skills required by the materials.

CLAY TABLE

Clay table training is a vital part of the Course curriculum.

The materials must be available.

And clay, not just modelling clay, can be used.

Flat surfaces must be provided.

The description of clay table training must be part of early checksheets in the school.

DEFINITIONS

A student is drilled and does clay table on the glossary after he has been through the course once.

CHECKSHEET SEQUENCE

The student is required to go in sequence through the entire checksheet HCO PL of 31 August 1974, issue II, “Fast Flow Training Reinstated”, applies to Translated Tape Courses.

The checksheet is arranged double-spaced for Tape Counter Reading, date and initial in the first of the three columns.

22 NOVEMBER 1971Issue IIReissued 11 August 1974 as BTBRemimeo(Translate to Various Languages)Course CANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 22 NOVEMBER 1971SAME TITLE

Tape Course Series 4

TAPE PLAYERS—DESCRIPTION AND CARE

Tape Players are the machines used on a Tape Course for playing back on already recorded magnetic tape.

Tape Recorders are the machines used to record the tapes in the first place.

Some tape machines will do both actions of recording and playback. On a Tape Course if these machines are used the button that is used for “recording” should be removed or sealed up so it can not be used. It will wipe the tape clean and lose the valuable course materials if pushed accidentally by a student. (This button is usually colored red.)

Tape players come in many makes and models. The controls and switches are arranged in various places and styles but are all pretty much the same in function.

20. Pause key (stops tape while held down only—tape continues to play as soon as released).

21. Fast wind key forward.

22. Rewind key (fast backward).

23. Track Selector Switch (some tapes have several sound tracks recorded on the one side).

24. Speed Selector Switch (tapes can be recorded at different speeds and so some must be played at different speeds to others).

25. Indicator dial and buttons connected with recording—not used when playing tapes.

Here are some points to help you use the tape player:

(a) When placing a tape on the machine, an arrow on top of the tape reel indicates an opening in which you place the tape end. Keep this end very small. Long loose ends break off and can jam the machine.

(b) The dull brown colored side of the tape must always face inwards against the playing head when threading the tape. This is the side that Ron’s lectures are recorded on.

(c) To wind back or fast wind the machine always press the stop key first. Harm is done if the playing tape is suddenly switched over to reverse or fast forward by-passing the stop button.

(d) The magnetic materials of the earphones can harm the tape so never leave the earphones lying on top of an uncovered tape player.

(e) Keep all dirt out of the tape player and when away from the player replace the lid to avoid dust entering into the machine.

(f) Every care must be taken to avoid rough handling of tapes. Do not misplace tapes into incorrect boxes and never permit loose ends to protrude out of the closed box.

(g) Switch off the tape player when not in use (break time) and when you have finished with the machine. This prevents overheating of inner parts and drive belts.

(h) The tape counter indicator should be set at zero when you first start playing the tape. This counter will register your place whenever you stop the tape. Do not insert a piece of paper or anything else between the tape as a method of registering your place.

(i) At the first sign of any fault with the tape player please call the Supervisor and report what it is to him or her.

(j) Twisting or knotting the earphone cord is strictly forbidden as this leads to inner wire breakage, which results in a concealed fault that can be difficult to locate.

(k) The metal “playing head” across which the tape moves when playing must be cleaned at regular intervals as it picks up dust from the tape resulting in blurred poor quality sound. This playing head should be cleaned after every 8 hours of playing time or whenever the sound becomes blurred. The playing head is cleaned by use of a cotton swab on the end of a toothpick and cleaning fluid. This is wiped with firm pressure across the playing head until the dirt and dust are removed and the metal is clean again. Great care must be taken not to scratch the playing head as the tape would then be damaged as it passed across.

(l) The tape player must also be demagnetized after every 8 hours playing time. This is done with a special demagnetizer designed for the purpose. The playing head and all the metal parts on the tape “path” are demagnetized in this manner.

These parts build up a magnetic attraction with continuous tape playing and this can be harmful to the quality of sound on the tape if not handled and removed as above.

It is the Supervisor’s or Course Administrator’s responsibility to learn to do this action and to do it at least once per day on all tape players.

(m) The moving parts of the tape machine mechanism also need regular cleaning and lubrication with a very fine lubricant. This procedure can be carefully learned by the Course Administrator from a professional at the job and can be done by him thereafter.

Training & Services Aide

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

21 NOVEMBER 1974Remimeo(Translate to CANCELSEuropean BTB OF 24 NOVEMBER 1971Languages) originally issued asAll Students HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1971Tech & Qual “COURSE MATERIALS”Tech CANCELSBTB OF 24 NOVEMBER 1971Roriginally issued asHCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1971Issue III“ADMINISTRATIVE AND HAT MATERIALS”

CANCELSBTB OF 22 NOVEMBER 1971originally issued asHCO BULLETIN OF 22 NOVEMBER 1971“TRANSLATION TAPES, USE OF”

Tape Course Series 5

TRANSLATED TAPESFOR STAFF AND STUDENT USE

Translated tapes shipped to Orgs and Missions are primarily for staff and student use. As follows:

TRANSLATED ADMINISTRATIVE ANDHAT MATERIALS

Translated administrative and hat materials are translated onto tape in the item by item sequence of the hat checksheet or staff course checksheet. The checksheets are themselves not translated onto tape but onto paper and accompany the translation tapes along with a mimeographed glossary of technical terms and phrases, and course rules.

Every Org with non-English speaking staff members needs translated tape copies of at least Staff Status I and II, OEC Vols 0-7 and the Professional Salesmanship Course BPL 22 July 74 with their accompanying checksheets, glossaries and course instructions translated onto paper.

Training of staffs on admin and hat materials is done in the Academy, Div 4, Dept 11, under a Supervisor and in accordance with “What is a Course?” PL 16 March 1971.

Translated administrative and hat materials may not be played to the Public. They are not for public issue or distribution free or for charge.

TRANSLATED COURSE MATERIALS

Use of Course Study Tapes is well covered in HCO B 10 November 71, Revised 21 Sept 74, “Tapes, How to Use”, Tape Course Series 6R. This same issue applies to admin and hat materials also.

Course materials may be heard by those persons who have legally enrolled on and paid for the course concerned.

Students and course graduates can buy translation course tapes from Pubs DK or their Org. Evidence of course enrollment or graduation from a Tape Course must accompany the tape order.

Translated Course tapes may not be played to the general Public who are not enrolled on a specific course. They are not for public issue or distribution, free or for charge.

TAPE NOTES

A notebook is to be used and kept neat and complete by each student.

In order for the student to quickly find any reference on a tape after he has listened to it, he must mark down in his notebook the “counter” number on the tape machine at the beginning of each HCOPL, HCO B, Book, Chapter, etc, and also identify the type of machine.

IMPORTANT: AT THE START OF THE TAPE, THE STUDENT MUST ENSURE THE COUNTER ON THE TAPE MACHINE READS AT 0.

When checkouts are required, students check each other out from the actual tapes not from the notes.

Tape notes may not be recopied by another or distributed amongst other students. They are for the student’s own use, and are not for public distribution. Such notebooks may never be mimeographed or published as they often contain errors.

PROTECTION

To guard against any possibility of students reissuing their course notes in printed form or allowing another to recopy the tape notes, a Waiver is to be drawn up and signed by the student, or by his parents or guardian, if a minor, before commencing the Tape Course. The Waiver states that he understands the material is given him for training purposes only and should he reissue his notes to anyone outside the Org, or allow another to recopy he will be billed for $1,000.

NO TRANSLATION TAPES MAY BE TRANSCRIBED IN WRITTEN FORM. THE TAPES ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT FROM PRINTED OR TAPE COPYING.

CARE OF

Translated tape packages are filed as a complete package altogether—NEVER split up and filed by date order or in some other fashion.

The Master Card File kept by the Course Admin is a record of what items are on what tapes. Each tape has its own Card File with contents listed and is the index of the actual translated tape package itself. Card Files can be made up from the tape box which has listed on the back the tape contents for sides one and two. Course and Hat Checksheets are filed alphabetically in file folders with their glossaries and course instructions and rules for student use.

Qual needs their own Master Card File system for Library contents filed in alphabetical order which says where each tape and checksheet, etc, is to be located.

CRAMMING

Cramming of students and staff on translated tape material is done in Qual Div, Dept 15.

Staff do not have to be enrolled on any course in order to be crammed. Public course students are sent to Cramming by their Course Supervisor or by the Student Examiner.

The Cramming Officer checks out staff and students from the translated tapes NEVER from the tape notes as notes are too far removed from the Source material and subject to misduplication. Before a Cramming Officer could give a checkout from a tape he must have listened to that section on the tape himself.

In addition to Tech, Qual have their own tape players equipped with foot pedal start-stop control situated in Qual for student and staff member use in Cramming and Word Clearing.

QUAL LIBRARY

A special tape listening area needs to be set up in the Qual Library space where Org staff members can come and go at their own free will to listen to any taped HCO Bs, HCO PLs, etc, undisturbed.

At least two copies of every translated tape package along with checksheets and glossaries are filed alphabetically in the Qual Library easily accessible for Auditors, C/Ses and student and staff Cramming purposes, Word Clearing and for staff who need to refer to or check out on individual issues contained within the translated tapes.

STAY PUT

Translated tape courses and translated administrative and hat materials on tape are the responsibility of and under the protection of Tech and Qual Divs. They may NEVER be removed from these areas as they invariably get lost or misplaced or damaged.

AVAILABILITY

Every effort must be made to make translated admin and hat materials and translated course materials readily available for student and staff member use and to remove any stops or arbitraries which might prevent staff or students knowing and applying the tech of Dianetics and Scientology.

It is of vital interest to Keepers of Tech to ensure that full sets of translated Tech and Admin materials exist and are used.

(Reissued 23 November 1971 verbatimadditionally as a Tape Course Series HCO B.)

FOREWORD

The most appalling ignorance has existed on the use of magnetic recording tapes.

It is therefore of the greatest possible importance that the subject of tape use be grasped and gotten rapidly into effect.

Probably half the technology of admin and tech exists only on tape.

Tapes, incorrectly used, can be the source of endless misunderstoods. Because tapes have been almost uniformly misused in the past, these misunderstoods have added up to a general misunderstood on the subject of tapes themselves.

Students have been known to copy down the whole tape so they could study it. This is a complete waste of time and misuse of student study hours.

Some orgs even played advanced study tapes to the public.

European orgs have even played translation quality tapes (usually not auditorium quality) of OEC Volumes as raw public lectures! (And lost their audience through lack of quality and inaudible and strange words.)

Casual staff briefing tapes, not okay for release, of very bad quality, have been played to staffs of other orgs and the public.

There is no end to the abuses.

Therefore, for the benefit of understanding words alone, it is VITAL that tapes be properly used and not abused.

TYPES OF TAPES

There are four classes of tapes. These are:

1. Course study tapes.

2. Public lecture tapes.

3. Briefing tapes.

4. Model performance tapes.

COURSE STUDY TAPES

Tapes made for courses are of two varieties:

(a) English, usually by LRH.

(b) Translations, done by translators.

They are FOR COURSE USE. This is what the org sells—training on Tech or Admin.

These tapes appear on checksheets and are done at the points of checksheets where they are called for, and are done by Method 2 for tapes or Method 3 for tapes as required.

The foreign language tape courses are done from a special tape checksheet and are done exactly as laid down by Method 2 or Method 3.

None of these tapes are all written out by the student and then studied. This is a waste of time.

Further, such tapes are NOT played straight through with the student making notes of any misunderstood words “to look up later”. This will blank out the tape content on the student’s mind and knock out the student.

So to play a course tape straight through to any student is to risk a stupidity and a blow. IT IS NOT DONE. It does not matter whether the student takes notes of misunderstoods or not. A COURSE TAPE IS NOT PLAYED STRAIGHT THROUGH. Only the earphone, footpedal start-stop control procedures are used.

A course tape is NEVER PLAYED TO A GROUP OF STUDENTS. When played to more than one student, some student is going to get a misunderstood and there goes a blank student.

Two students don’t even listen to a tape even on Method 2 Tape Word Clearing! One has the meter and footpedal and the other the earphones. The word clearer stops at each read. He does not otherwise listen.

Course tape quality must be good. All the words must be hearable and not inaudible. They must not be slurred or hard to make out.

The earphones and tape player used must be high fidelity just any old earphones won’t do.

The tape player “playing head” across which the tape passes must be clean—done by a cotton swab on a toothpick and cleaning fluid. The tape coating comes off on the playing head and after a time the sound is badly blurred.

Using a course tape any other way is now FORBIDDEN. Tests have shown that violations of this are the reason for student failures and blows and out-Ethics.

It goes without saying that the general handling of tape players and tapes must be well learned and practiced by Course Supervisors and students.

PUBLIC LECTURE TAPES

The probable reason stats fall after tape congresses is the misunderstood word.

Congresses seldom use really high fidelity equipment. Further, tape copying is often done by outside firms and the tape copies themselves may be of poor quality. The combination is deadly.

We looked for the reason for stat drops after tape congresses and this is the only explanation which has come forth.

Doingness congresses that are mainly seminars have been very successful. (By doingness is meant TRs—training drills—and other ACTIONS.) The relay of data to a public whose vocabulary is usually inadequate is not likely to win, as it hits their faulty vocabulary for one thing and uses new words for another. You can show somebody how to do things far better than you can tell him.

This then extends into Div 6 Introductory Actions as well. The relay of data comes AFTER the demonstration in action terms.

The possibility of possible bad playing speakers, possible low tape copy quality, the barriers of languages not learned in the first place and the introduction of new mental concepts combine into a hurdle that makes tape or film public presentation adventurous.

Listening to public type tapes, by using footpedal start-stop tape players, is being put in a special public course category.

Raw public tape and film presentations are however a must to keep the flavor and meaning of Dianetics and Scientology. So ensure excellent quality tapes and equipment are used with correct tapes for that public and you will have success.

BRIEFING TAPES

These are not to be confused with Special Briefing Course Tapes.

A briefing tape is done to brief or debrief missionaires or to record a conference or to record special instructions to a person or group. It can then be used for reference or to settle any dispute. It can also be used to inform a staff or several staffs.

A briefing tape is then a tape designed for a special and informed audience.

If the tape quality is good and the audience is already a familiar or trained audience, a briefing tape can be played ONLY TO THE AUDIENCE FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED.

To do otherwise is to risk misunderstood words and non-comprehension of what it is all about in general.

“Ron’s Journals” were staff briefing tapes. They began to be used for public. While they were not without success, one could no longer brief staffs on this line and the line was therefore cut. One could not make them with a security that they would be played to staffs.

An isolated briefing to a single executive on “these are our future hopes” has been thereafter used as a staff briefing of many orgs as “these are your orders”.

Any tape is designed for a specific public.

Briefing tapes are especially subject to abuse by being played to wrong publics.

Any briefing tape which contains specific orders and plans which could be misunderstood should be played only to the individuals concerned with a stop-start footpedal and Method 3 Word Clearing, not going past any misunderstood.

After a person has been briefed verbally, it is very revelatory to then Word Clear 2 the tape made at the same time. It will often be found that misunderstood words lead to potential alter-is in the actions required.

Tape in this instance is an enormous help in assisting and clarifying briefings.

A group can be briefed if thereafter each is Word Cleared Method 3 or 2 on the tape afterwards, using standard tape word clearing.

Needless to say such tapes must be of good quality.

MODEL PERFORMANCE TAPES

Tapes exist which give a standard of performance.

In Dianetic and Scientology Auditing student auditors have never been known to achieve a high standard of session presence and Communication (and accordingly high results) without the careful study of tapes made of similar sessions by high level auditors.

A student musician is unlikely to achieve professional performance level unless he has heard a professional play.

It would take a film or live demonstration to communicate a high standard of performance in a purely action subject. For instance for centuries no one believed that Robin Hood could split his first target arrow with a second until a new generation worked on it and a few painfully recovered the lost art of archery and then demonstrated how it was done for others to see.

Tapes and films serve a vital purpose in maintaining a performance standard.

As these tapes and films show HOW it is done and the ATMOSPHERE and RHYTHM of ACTION they are not subject to word clearing.

CONCLUSION

Tape and film training is vital, valuable and has its role.

But like showing a child how to open a book and read, there is exact technology in USING tapes and films.

The first thing one must realize is that the use of tape and film is itself a technical subject that must be studied and learned. One does not naturally know it.

The failures of universities to make educated and civilized men is because their own professors know nothing of misunderstood words and so lectured happily on and on to a snoring student body. One professor of physics used to open the classroom windows wide in freezing winter “to keep his students from going to sleep in HIS class”. And then stood on the platform and defined nothing as he rambled on. All it did for his class was give them coughs between snores!

The handling and use of tape and film in training and administration IS a subject.

By failing to know it and use that information, one can block the road for himself and all others to being learned and being free.

25 NOVEMBER 1971RReissued 7 July 1974 as BTBRevised & Reissued 21 November 1974(Translate to Languages) CANCELSSupervisors BTB OF 25 NOVEMBER 1971Students SAME TITLEWord ClearersCourse Admin (This issue has been changed from TC Series 9to TC Series 7. Points 10-19 have been revised.)

Tape Course Series 7

SETTING UP AND USING A TAPE PLAYER

Tapes of course materials must always be listened to through high quality high fidelity earphones. This permits the listener to be undisturbed by other noises in the area, as well as prevents others from being disturbed by the tape being played. High fidelity earphones permit the listener to have his undivided attention on the tape and produce a pleasant and easy to listen to sound which closely duplicates what is spoken on the tape.

The tape player used must also be of high quality to reproduce the sound without adding to or distorting what is on the tape. Poor quality sound is difficult and annoying to listen to and causes misunderstoods by preventing the listener from hearing exactly what is said. Properly cared for and regularly maintained, a high quality player will last several times as long as one costing half as much which never does produce a good quality sound.

SETTING UP THE TAPE PLAYER

1. The tape player is set up on a steady bench, table or platform at a comfortable height so the student can operate the controls easily when seated in front of it.

2. If possible, the tape machines should be set up so that the student is facing the Supervisor of the Course, rather than the student having his back to the Supervisor. This enables the Supervisor to spot easily if the student has gone dull or sleepy from a misunderstood word.

3. The tape machine is plugged in, switched on, to check if the power is on and that the machine is operating.

4. The tape machine must be the type that is set up to operate with a start/stop foot pedal switch. These can easily be obtained and fitted to existing tape players that do not already have them.

This is very important as the machine will be started and stopped many times by the student (with his foot on the pedal) while he is using his hands to look up words in the dictionary, fill in his checksheet, etc.

The connected foot pedal is placed where it is in easy reach of the student’s foot.

Test it to ensure it is working.

5. The tape player “playing head” across which the tape passes, is checked to ensure that it is clean. The tape coating comes off on the playing head and after a time the sound is badly blurred.

If the playing head appears dirty or the sound is blurred, the tape head must be cleaned. This is done using a cotton swab on a toothpick and cleaning fluid. It is rubbed across the playing head until all the tape coating is removed.

6. The tape that is to be heard is obtained and put on the player and set up for start-by passing the “coloured leader” on the tape past the playing head and onto the empty spool. Make sure it is passed around the “roller guides” (designed to ensure it runs freely and doesn’t catch and tear on any sharp edges).

7. Plug in the earphones, put them on, and switch on the tape to test them (to ensure they are working and the quality of sound is good). Adjust the tone and volume to suitable levels. Switch off the tape.

8. Place a good dictionary, a “demonstration kit”, the Course checksheet and a notebook and pen where they are in easy reach while seated at the tape machine.

9. Set the “tape counter” at zero and the tape at the beginning (by winding it back if it has started into the Course lecture during the tests).

USING THE TAPE PLAYER

10. Play the tape at its correct speed.

11. Listen to the tapes in the order they are entered on your Course checksheet.

12. Mark off each item on your Course checksheet as you finish listening to it (or when you have checked out on it if a checkout is required).

13. Mark the “tape counter reading” of each item on your checksheet as that item begins on the tape. This gives you a reference by which you can find any item later on. You may be required to restudy some items by the Supervisor and you may want to hear some of them again yourself to clarify them with later tapes.

14. If a word(s) or phrase on a tape cannot be understood, call for the Supervisor. The Supervisor listens to the tape and if he can’t distinguish what is being said, with the help of the Course Admin, gets hold of the English text and locates the word or phrase, then using a good foreign language dictionary translates the word or phrase for the student. This cycle should only take a couple of minutes.

15. If a student bogs on listening to a translated tape, he is first Word Cleared. Should the confusion not clear up, the translated tape is compared to the English material and if found to be a translation error the Supervisor or Word Clearer, with the use of a good dictionary, translates the English text correctly for the student. The Supervisor makes a note of the translation error by entering the error on a card which is placed in the Tape Box for student use, and sends a report to TU Chief Pubs DK.

16. When rewinding a tape back a bit wait until the tape stops before you press the start button otherwise the tape is liable to break through mishandling.

17. Rewind each tape onto its correct spool as you finish listening to it and turn off the tape machine. Replace it in its box and return it to its correct place from which it came.

18. Replace the cover on the tape machine when the machine has been finished with.

Remimeo Revised & Reissued 17 August 1974 as BTBAll Tape Revised 21 November 1974CourseStudents CANCELSTranslate BTB OF 26 NOVEMBER 1971into the SAME TITLEvariouslanguages

Tape Course Series 8

Word Clearing Series 26RA

HANDLING MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS ONTAPE RECORDED MATERIALS

Method 3 Word Clearing must be done routinely by any Course student. It is done by the student himself and also by the Supervisor on his students.

METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING ON TAPES

1. The tape machine and tape are set up exactly as per Tape Course Series 7, BTB 25 Nov 71 R, Rev. 21 Nov 74, “Setting Up and Using a Tape Player”.

2. Whilst listening to the tape, if the student hears a word he does not understand, he immediately stops the tape by means of the foot pedal start-stop control.

3. He writes the word down in his notebook and immediately looks up the word exactly per BTB 4 Sept 71R, Rev. 15 Dec 73, Word Clearing Series 22R, “How to Use a Dictionary”, clearing all definitions and any not understood or misunderstood words in the definitions, and putting each into sentences.

4. Student then checks the tape for the exact use of the word in the tape.

5. Student then rewinds the tape to just before the word cleared above and relistens to the section to ensure that it is understood.

6. The student continues listening to the tape until he encounters another word which he does not understand, at which point he does the actions outlined in 3, 4 and 5 above.

7. If at any point the student becomes bored, feels blank, washed out, not there, starts yawning, dopes off or wants to blow, he must recognize that he has gone past a misunderstood word.

8. The student must turn the tape back to the point where he was interested and alert and check the section just after that for the misunderstood word or words, and clear them according to steps 3, 4 and 5.

9. The student then rewinds the tape back to the end of the section where he felt fine and relistens to the tape from that point on, picking up and clearing any other words found.

10. If the student starts to feel squashed, gets a headache, stomach feels funny, gets dizzy from time to time, or eyes start to hurt, the student should locate the section on the tape where he had a lack of mass, and either go and find the actual mass under discussion and feel and inspect it, if possible, or find a photo of it, or demonstrate the mass in clay with labels, or use his demo kit to demonstrate the mass. The student should then relisten to the rest of the tape from that section on.

11. The Supervisor must be alert to the manifestations of lack of mass and misunderstood words and quickly see that the correct handling is done rapidly. If he does not handle, he will shortly end up with no students.

12. If a student cannot locate the misunderstood word using Method 3, either on his own or with the Supervisor, the Supervisor should apply Method 2 Word Clearing to that section of the tape to quickly locate and handle the misunderstood words. If the student’s TA is above 3.5 or below 2.0, end off and send the student to Qual for a C/S 53RI.

13. A Supervisor should check students who have just completed a tape and look tired or not there, by asking questions about the tape. If the student cannot answer or gives a wrong or altered answer, the Supervisor should make the student go back and relisten to the tape and find and clear the misunderstood words.

The above procedure is very simple and the essential ingredients to have F/Ning students who know and can apply their materials.

Revised by CS—5 Ens. Judy Ziff

In co-ordination with FlagMission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

27 NOVEMBER 1971RRevised & Reissued 21 November 1974 as BTBRemimeo(Translateto Various CANCELSLanguages) HCO BULLETIN OF 27 NOVEMBER 1971Supervisors SAME TITLEStudents

Tape Course Series 9

Word Clearing Series 27R

METHOD 2 WORD CLEARING ON TAPESAND TAPE COURSES

Method 2 Word Clearing is done on the student by another student trained to do so or the Supervisor or a Word Clearer.

The person doing the Method 2 Word Clearing must be trained in the use of an E-Meter and instant reads.

There are two ways in which Method 2 Word Clearing can be used.

As a study remedy on the area of current difficulty.

As a study method on the whole material currently being studied (or the whole of previously studied materials!-

When used as a study remedy on the area of current difficulty, Method 2 is simply used to locate the misunderstood word or words that could not be located by Method 3 Word Clearing. It is done then and there in the classroom or Qual and does not require C/S OK.

This is done by locating and clearing the word that caused the E-Meter needle to read (small fall, fall, etc).

The student having Method 2 Word Clearing done on him holds the cans of the E-Meter (E-Meter electrodes) while he listens to the tape. He does nothing else, other than listen to the tape.

3. The student is having trouble with the tape or the subject. The difficulty hasn’t been resolved and the word causing the trouble hasn’t been located.

4. The Course Supervisor or a trained Word Clearer now takes over to handle the difficulty with Method 2 Word Clearing.

5. The student either takes the tape he is having trouble with to the Supervisor/Word Clearer’s desk (where another tape machine and an E-Meter are set up)—or the Supervisor takes an E-Meter and sets it up at the student’s tape machine.

6. The student is asked at which point on the tape he became bogged. He is then asked for the point on the tape when he was doing OK. The tape is then reversed to the exact end point of where he was doing well. The first MU will be just after that and there may be others.

7. The Supervisor/Word Clearer operates the foot pedal start-stop control of the tape machine as well as the E-Meter, and does worksheets of the Word Clearing.

8. The student listens to the tape. He also holds the cans of the E-Meter while he is listening to the tape. If the student’s TA is above 3.5 or below 2.0, send the student to Qual for rapid C/S Series 53RI handling and return to course.

9. As the tape plays, the Supervisor/Word Clearer watches his Meter needle. As soon as the needle reads (small fall, fall, etc) the Supervisor/Word Clearer stops the machine by use of the foot pedal, and asks the student for the misunderstood word.

It is extremely important that the Supervisor/Word Clearer stop the tape player at the exact moment of the Meter read, otherwise he may be asking the student for three or four or even six or eight words later than the reading word, and thus cause undue difficulty for the student.

10. If the student can’t spot the word, the Supervisor/Word Clearer replays the last short section to assist the student to find the MU.

11. If the student still can’t spot the word, the Supervisor/Word Clearer turns the tape back a little further and replays that whole section, using the tape counter numbers to guide his stopping and starting actions. He locates the MU.

12. All misunderstood words on tapes are cleared according to BTB 4 Sept 71R, Rev. 15 Dec 73, 20 July 74, WC Series 22R, “How to Use a Dictionary”, clearing each word to F/N.

13. The student keeps hold of the cans and the Supervisor/Word Clearer locates the word in the dictionary, understands the definition himself and then holds it for the student to read.

14. The student reads all definitions out loud whilst the Word Clearer watches the needle in order to pick up any MUs in the definitions.

15. The Word Clearer ensures that the student puts each definition into sentences to ensure the word is fully understood, to F/N.

16. The Word Clearer ensures that the student has clarified the exact definition of the word as used in the tape, and plays back that section of the tape for the student, in order to ensure it is cleared.

17. The tape is now turned back to the beginning of the section where the student ran into trouble to double check that it is now resolved. There should be no reads, and F/N, on that section of the material.

If there are any more reads, these are picked up and cleared, and the section replayed again, until there are no more reads on that section, and F/N on the repair.

18. The trouble is now resolved and the student is returned to normal study, where he is expected to apply Method 3 Word Clearing as a routine.

19. If the student’s difficulty has not resolved, the student is sent to Qual for a Word Clearing Correction List, which will locate the cause of the trouble.

20. The student is returned to Course when the difficulty has been located and handled, resulting in an F/Ning student.

METHOD 2 WORD CLEARING AS A STUDY METHODON TAPE MATERIALS

On some professional checksheets or special staff training actions, all the materials of the course are required to be done Method 2 Word Clearing. Also when earliest materials are being Word Cleared Method 2.

Method 2 done for this purpose has steps as follows.

A. The Case Supervisor OK must be obtained to ensure that the student is not in the middle of a major auditing rundown or process or due for an Interiorization Rundown, etc. (Word Clearing M2 can be done between the processes of a program.)

B. The tape player is set up as given earlier.

C. Note: If the student has a high or low TA on the Meter (above 3.5 or below 2.0 after the Meter has been turned on for a few minutes to warm up and the cans have been warmed by the student holding them for a few minutes) or if the student is in pain or upset—the Word Clearer does not start metered Word Clearing. The Word Clearer informs the student, “I’m sorry we will not be starting Word Clearing at this time.” The Word Clearer reports this in writing with the student’s TA position to the Supervisor who forwards the report to the DPE so that the needed C/S Series 53RI session can be given the student. This must be done quickly so he can be gotten on to his Word Clearing. The student is immediately called in for C/S 53RI handling to the result of an F/Ning student at which point the student is returned to his course.

D. Starting the Word Clearing is done by informing the student, “I am not auditing you.” The tape is then started and the procedure is as given earlier in this BTB for Method 2. The only difference being that the whole materials are covered in this manner with the Word Clearer taking up and clearing all reading words (and any words originated by the student as misunderstood).

E. Each word handled is cleared to Floating Needle on the Meter.

F. The Word Clearing period is ended on Floating Needle.

G. Note: If the Word Clearing bogs down and it can’t be resolved, the Word Clearer or Supervisor must end off and send the Worksheets to the Review Auditor in Dept 14 at once, who will handle by doing a Word Clearing Correction List.

Too generalized a question in using Method 4 defeats its use and can restimulate a person badly.

Example: “Is there anything in college you didn’t understand?” That of course is just plain ridiculous as a question. “Have you ever heard anything you didn’t understand?” would be similarly silly.

BREAK DOWN THE MATERIALS

When doing Method 4 you have to break down the materials (put them into small separate units) in order to ask questions.

Example: We have Papers 1 & 2, both on the same subject. The wrong question for Method 4 would be “Is there anything in Papers 1 & 2 you didn’t understand?” and not even give him the papers to see! The right way to do it would be to take Paper 1 and break it down into its obvious sections, give the person Paper 1 and let him look at it. Point to its 1st section and say, “Is there anything you didn’t understand in this section?” while watching the meter. Then point to next section, do the same. Finish Paper 1. Then go to Paper 2 and do it the same.

A person has to know what he’s being asked about and has to be thinking of it when asked the question.

TAPES

Just as it would be ridiculous to ask, “Have you ever misunderstood anything you ever read?”, it would be silly to ask, “Did you ever have a misunderstood on Tape?”

The right way is to take the tape and put it on a machine and play a bit of it. And ask, “Is there anything in the first section of this tape you didn’t understand?” while watching the meter. Then high speed the tape forward to another area and do the same. Thus the tape is covered.

It has been found, in many cases, that tapes with Scientology materials are not in use because of an individual WHY for each Org person concerned.

As a great amount of the data of Scientology is contained only on tapes, especially in Europe where the written materials are also translated onto tape, it is vital that those concerned fully understand tape use and the operation of tape machines and that any individual WHY for non-use of tapes be found and handled.

This BTB gives a rundown to handle the individual WHY and to get tape use understood and applied.

The rundown is done in Qual by the Cramming Officer as a corrective action. HCO PL 30 August 74, Issue II, “Qual Stat Change”, applies.

BASIC TAPE RUNDOWN

1. FIND WHY he did not use tapes in the first place using BPL 6 April 1972R, Cramming Series 16, “How to Find a Why on a Person and Handle”. There will be an individual WHY. It is seldom only misunderstoods.

2. HANDLE THE WHY. Handling of the Why is directly related to the Why that was found. It may require hatting, confront and reach and withdraw drills or other action as indicated.

3. WORD CLEAR METHOD 6 the individual words and symbols printed on the actual tape machines used in the Org by that person.

When translating tape lectures to tapes it has been found that higher quality translations are achieved by using tape transcripts instead of the actual taped lecture. A secondary factor is that using transcripts is easier for the Sight Translator and consequently speed of production and morale are increased.

The method for translating taped lectures is as follows:

1. The Translator is provided with a typed transcript of the taped lecture. Transcripts used must be expertly done and edited so they read well.

2. The Translator (using Word Clearing Technology and a dictionary to clear up any misunderstoods) rapidly reads or goes through the transcript to get a general grasp of the subject.

3. The Technical Assistant who knows the subject and the original language now goes through the transcript with the Translator. Every technical word or phrase or cultural idiom is underlined.

4. While underlining, the two persons decide on the correct translation of the technical word or phrase.

5. As these are decided, they are written down on notepaper with a complete definition.

6. Each word, phrase and definition is translated into the language and written down on a separate sheet of paper.

7. The translated words, phrases and definitions will become a mimeographed glossary for the eventual student.

8. With this glossary to hand, the Translator then takes the transcript to the recording booth and begins direct translation of the transcript onto tape. At the beginning of the tape the tape is copyrighted, title of the tape and number are given.

9. The translated master tape is then given to the recording engineer who handles the making of Production Masters, editing, copying. In other words, gets the tape prepared for distribution.

10. Pre-taping of transcripts before making the Translation Master tape is allowed and is covered in HCO PL 2 April 71, “Sight Translating Expertise”.

What is NOT done:

A. Translating an English tape transcription into a foreign language on manuscript and then translating from the foreign language transcription onto a Master Tape.

B. Transcribing an LRH tape into a foreign language and then transferring that onto tape. Correct sequence is transcription to English first, and then the translating onto tape.

C. Translating directly from the taped lecture onto tape.

D. Using transcriptions which are not expertly done. To do otherwise will result in alter-is and confusion of the material and misunderstoods for the student or staff member.

E. Trying to sound as Ron would sound on one of his taped lectures. This is not required. Reading the materials in an interested voice and not letting any hesitation or note of mystery creep in is sufficient enough. The test is the translator must sound as though he is actually lecturing.

Revised by CS-2 Lt. Comdr. Robin Roos

In co-ordination with FlagMission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

9 JANUARY 1974RREVISED 21 NOVEMBER 1974RemimeoTranslation (Only revision is changePubs Orgs of Series No. from 17 to 13)

Tape Course Series 13

TAPE COURSE CHECKSHEETS

Translated Tape Courses differ from standard English courses in that the translated HCO Bs and PLs are recorded on tape instead of mimeoed on paper.

Because of this difference, the checksheets must be laid out in such a manner that the student can easily find where each HCO B and HCO PL begins on the tapes. He must be able to do this without having to listen to all of the tapes or a whole tape each time he wants to find a particular piece of data from an issue.

Tape counters are used by students listening to a translated tape course to keep a record of where the issues are located on the tape. As the student listens to the items through the tape, he writes the tape counter reading (as the item begins) beside the item on the checksheet.

This gives him a tape counter reference for each item and makes it easy for any specific item on the tape to be located swiftly if he needs to listen to it again.

So tape course checksheets contain the tape numbers of each tape, and a space for the tape counter reading.

The following is the exact procedure used by Translations Units in making tape course checksheets.

A. The translator takes the English checksheet of the course he has translated onto tape and translates the checksheet onto paper with these additions:

1. Just before the first item on the checksheet is a brief explanation of the tape course. (See attached sample for text.)

2. The translator leaves more space than usual between items on the checksheet so there will be room to include the tape numbers on the checksheet.

3. An extra column is put at the beginning margin of each checksheet item for noting the tape counter reading of each item on the tape.

B. Next, the tape numbers themselves must be entered on the checksheet, designating where each tape begins.

For example: 12 09 71 would be the number of the tape made on the 9th day of the 1 2th month (Dec.) 1971.

In addition to the tape number, the course and sequence are written out on the checksheet, with the tape number below it, i.e: HSDC—Tape 1 Side A Tape Number (120971)

All of this is entered in a “square” on the checksheet. An addition is made alongside this square as below:

The procedure for entering the tape numbers on the checksheet is as follows:

1. A full set of the tape copies (NOT Master tapes or Production Masters) for that particular course is obtained. The copies must be arranged in the proper sequence (Tape 1, Tape 2, etc), and must be in their labelled tape boxes.

2. The first tape is picked up, and the label on the back of the tape box is read. This label will list the items that are on the tape in the order they occur on the tape.

The translator (or another person who speaks the language) looks at this label to determine the first item on the first side of the tape (Side A).

3. He then locates the same item on the checksheet, and enters the tape number just above that item on the checksheet.

The Tape Course Series has been reviewed chronologically and, as a result, some Issues were revised and reissued and some were cancelled out altogether. In addition, the Tape Course Series has been renumbered for numerical sequence.

(1) By Meter in Session: A full assessment of many many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and/or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N VGIs.

(2) By Meter in Classroom: The earlier passage is read by the student while on a meter and the misunderstood word is found. Then it is fully defined by dictionary. The word is then used several times in sentences of the student’s own verbal composing. The misunderstood area is then reread until understood.

(3) Verbal in classroom: The student says he does not understand something. The Supervisor has him look earlier in the text for a misunderstood word, gets the student to look it up, use it verbally several times in sentences of his own composition, then read the text that contained it. Then come forward in the text to the area of the subject he did not understand.

If any other word clearing is going on it is OUT tech.

There is a C/S on HCOB 30 June 71 to be followed exactly on word clearing in a session. Do not follow any other version or excerpt. There is NO other way to do it.

If you are not auditing this way or using word clearing this way or if words are not being cleared this way, report it to Ethics.

Once development and issue has occurred the next step is to get it understood and applied EXACTLY.

If he is studying the doingness of something in which the mass is absent this will be the result.

Photographs help and motion pictures would do pretty good as they are a sort of promise or hope of the mass but the printed page and the spoken word are not a substitute for a tractor if he’s studying about tractors.

You have to understand this data in its purity—and that is that educating a person in a mass that they don’t have and which isn’t available produces physiological reactions. That is what I am trying to teach you.

It’s just a fact.

You’re trying to teach this fellow all about tractors and you’re not giving him any tractors—well he’s going to wind up with a face that feels squashed, with headaches and with his stomach feeling funny. He’s going to feel dizzy from time to time and very often his eyes are going to hurt.

It’s a physiological datum that has to do with processing and the field of the mind.

You could therefore expect the greatest incidence of suicide or illness in that field of education most devoted to studying absent masses.

This one of studying the something without its mass ever being around produces the most distinctly recognizable reactions.

If a child felt sick in the field of study and it were traced back to this one, the positive remedy would be to supply the mass—the object or a reasonable substitute— and it would clear it up.-------------

(2) There is another series of physiological phenomena that exist which is based on the fact of too steep a study gradient.

That’s another source of physiological study reaction because of too steep a gradient.

It is a sort of a confusion or a reelingness that goes with this one.

You’ve hit too steep a gradient.

There was too much of a jump because he didn’t understand what he was doing and he jumped to the next thing and that was too steep and he went too fast and he will assign all of his difficulties to this new thing.

Now differentiate here—because gradients sounds terribly like the 3rd one of these study hang-ups, definitions—but remember that they are quite distinctly different.

Gradients are more pronounced in the field of doingness but they still hang over into the field of understanding. In gradients however it is the actions we are interested in. We have a plotted course of forward motion of actions. We find he was terribly confused on the second action he was supposed to do. We must assume then that he never really got out of the first one.

The remedy for this one of too steep a gradient is cutting back. Find out when he was not confused on the gradient, then what new action he undertook to do. Find what action he understood well. Just before he was all confused what did he understand well—and then we find out that he didn’t understand it well.

It’s really at the tail end of what he understood and then he went over the gradient you see.

It is most recognizable and most applicable in the field of doingness.

That’s the gradient barrier and one full set of phenomena accompanies that.-------------

(3) There is this third one. An entirely different set of physiological reactions brought about through—a bypassed definition. A bypassed definition gives one a distinctly blank feeling or a washed-out feeling. A not-there feeling and a sort of nervous hysteria will follow in the back of that.

The manifestation of “blow” stems from this 3rd aspect of study which is the misunderstood definition or the not comprehended definition, the undefined word.

That’s the one that produces the blow.

The person doesn’t necessarily blow on these other two—they are not pronouncedly blow phenomena. They are simply physiological phenomena.

This one of the misunderstood definition is so much more important. It’s the make-up of human relations, the mind and subjects. It establishes aptitude and lack of aptitude and it’s what psychologists have been trying to test for years without recognizing what it was.

It’s the definitions of words.

The misunderstood word.

That’s all it goes back to and that produces such a vast panorama of mental effects that it itself is the prime factor involved with stupidity and the prime factor involved with many other things.

If a person didn’t have misunderstoods his talent might or might not be present but his doingness would be present.

We can’t say that Joe would paint as well as Bill if both were unaberrated in the field of art, but we can say that the inability of Joe to paint compared with the ability of Joe to do the motions of painting is dependent exclusively and only upon definitions—exclusively and only upon definitions.

There is some word in the field of art that the person who is inept didn’t define or understand and that is followed by an inability to act in the field of the arts.

That’s very important because it tells you what happens to doingness and that the restoration of doingness depends only upon the restoration of understanding on the misunderstood word—misunderstood definition.

This is very fast processing. There is a very swift wide big result obtainable in this.

It has a technology which is a very simple technology.

It enters in at the lower levels because it has to. This doesn’t mean it is unimportant, it means it has to be at the entrance gates of Scientology.

It is a sweepingly fantastic discovery in the field of education and don’t neglect it.

You can trace back the subject a person is dumb in or any allied subject that got mixed up with it. The psychologist doesn’t understand Scientology. He never understood a word in psychology so he doesn’t understand Scientology.

Well that opens the gate to Education. Although I’ve given this one of the misunderstood definition last it is the most important one.

Two-way comm where it has been described has been described for the use of an auditor, not a Supervisor of a Course.

Supervisors not knowing this then run around itsa-ing students.

They let the students itsa and they think they are going to get some place.

It’s the most incredible scene that you ever heard of and the boom could go bust only on this one point. I’ve got it narrowed down to this.

Apparently no matter how many times the study tapes have been played, nobody has ever heard of them.

I watched a recent course run to find out how deep they would let the students struggle—how long it would stay bogged—and it would have stayed bogged from here on out !

And do you know what’s out?

It’s the study data tapes just that—and that’s all that’s out on a course.

So when they say “2-way comm the students” you’ll find the Supervisors instantly start to itsa them and are using auditor 2-way comm on these courses. It doesn’t belong on these courses.

I’ll give you now the total dialogue of a Supervisor:

The Supervisor shows interest. There can be a little bit of chatter, like—”I see you’ve just completed. Great!”—something like that, or he shows interest—”How are you doing?”

Student replies—”Ah well, I’m doing all right.”

Supervisor—”Now are there any words there in that, that you have misunderstood?”

Student—”No ... no....”

Supervisor—”Well what is the word that you didn’t quite understand?”

Student—”Ah well . . . ah . . . this one.”

Supervisor—”Good. Now look that word up.... Now what’s the word in the paragraph above that, where’s that? . . . Alright let’s look that up. Now use it in a sentence a couple of times and I’ll be back in a minute.”

He comes back, the student gives him the sentences for it and straightens it out and he sees the student’s got it.

That’s the 2-way comm of a Supervisor.

If a Supervisor does any other thing you’ve got a wrecked course. I’ve got the proof of it.

The way you teach a TR Course is you give the student the bulletin and you have him read it. You don’t check the guy out on the bulletin, he just reads it.

When you come back you say, “Alright, have you read it?”

“Yeah. I’ve read it.”

“What word don’t you understand on it?”

You will find things like HCO B and TR, and you get those cleared up, etc.

I am having some roaring success stories from FEBC students who are through this.

One had gone through the bulletin 10 times and had found words he didn’t know all 10 times, and he was all of a sudden finding new things on the bulletin that he’d never heard of before.

Another student had gone through it 20 times with the same result and they were doing fine and getting down to TRs and passing them.

On a TR Course you give them the bulletin and let them read it and you find what word they didn’t understand. That’s the routine.

Now that sounds so impossible—and it’s been on the study tapes for so long—that you wouldn’t believe that this thing is the key.

Do you know there were students there for 15 or 20 days until we started doing this, then all of a sudden there was a breakthrough and their enthusiasm started coming up.

They had been just going lose, lose, lose, out the bottom because Supervisors were letting them itsa.

Maybe Supervisors thought they were auditors.

They aren’t.

Neither are they supposed to give advice or tell students how—or ask them if they blinked or anything else.

The other thing they were doing was only emphasizing all the “can’ts”.

The students just went into despair.

This was because the Supervisors were inviting all kinds of itsa and criticizing and so forth.

You may say, “Gee! Everybody knows it’s a misunderstood word.”

Yeh—but they don’t use it.

Now I’ll give you another one.

I set up a test so that each student was brought up to the D of T who had a meter on his desk and he’d ask them if they had anything they misunderstood—and see if they got a read on the meter.

If it didn’t clear up at once he’d send them back to get the definitions and look the thing up and of course use the word in a couple of sentences and then if it didn’t clear up he’d send them to the word clearer and really let them get worked over because it goes way back.

They even found a student who had a misunderstood word clear back into his last life.

There wasn’t any other 2-way comm and no other interest and they just about blew the roof off with student stat points.

This is the action of a Supervisor and that’s ALL the action a Supervisor does—and he can do that.

The course has plenty of dictionaries and so on.

But, the main point is, it is the misunderstood word. This has been proven again.

On a TR practical course it’s the misunderstood word and the misunderstood action.

On other courses it’s just misunderstood words and misunderstood words and misunderstood words, one right after the other.

As fast as they clear this up—up the student’s production goes.

It’s painfully slow on some of them at first and I suppose the Supervisors have so many misunderstood words of their own that they just won’t key into doing this action and that’s what’s wrecking courses.

It’s elementary, and it’s the wildest discovery of all time but they don’t use it.

If it is used, your courses start running fast, your students start learning quickly and all starts going well.

Other course outnesses like Supervisors not giving anybody a pack or no one to give checkouts are all Administrative outnesses.

As far as actual Supervision is concerned it’s this other line of handling misunderstood words.

The second that line is in there are wins all over the place.

The second that line is out there is no delivery.

If auditors are goofing, then in their training they have not been made to look up the misunderstood word and a lot of itsa has gone on and people have evaluated for them. Then these auditors having made mistakes they never corrected with this tech, think they need something new to run on pcs, but they just wreck new tech too.

We are shooting for a target, using just this misunderstood word tech, of a reduction of time by about a third on all major courses.

Just using this misunderstood word tech. That’s all.

If some student is a totally slow student, you can get him back to the first bulletin or book he ever read and make him get every word in it he didn’t understand, and it will go up in a chain.

I don’t think from the day they were spoken until now, anybody has understood or used “The Study Tapes”.

This is the only piece of Technology that you use on a course.

There is no other teaching technology of any kind used on a course.

The 2-way comm HCOBs are Auditor 2-way comm.

The Supervisor has to know 2-way comm simply so that he can ask these burning questions:

“How are you doing?” (Not with a lot of student itsa.)

“Is there any word you haven’t understood?”

“Look it up.”

“Use it in a sentence a few times.”

That’s the TOTALITY. That’s all there is to teaching a course as far as the technology goes.

It’s contained in the few words which I have just given you and there’s no other technology.

That’s all there is to teaching a course because that’s all that’s wrong with students.

You can monitor it this way. You can watch a student’s stats day to day. His stats are down today compared with yesterday’s so you go over and talk to him. He says, “Yes. I had a hard night last night, up all night arguing with my wife,” etc—which could go on for hours.

But the Supervisor says, “Now yesterday or today what word did you run across that you didn’t understand?”

The meter gives a LF.

He says, “Yes! Well I didn’t understand the word ‘waffle-waffle’.”

The Supervisor says, “Well let’s look it up and get it defined.”

The student says, “Well it wasn’t that word, it was the word before that.”

Supervisor, “Good—let’s get this looked up and used a couple of times in a sentence.”

The student does and he gets an F/N and it’s all fine.

His study stats go back up.

That’s all there is to it!

There are two ways to fail to communicate the tech. One is not to read the HCO Bs and the other is not to use the misunderstood word tech.

(Of course you can have no course and nobody there even trying.)

The worst thing would be to pretend to have a course but have missing materials and Supervisors giving verbal advice or tech. That is deadly and will turn any Academy sour.

Verbal tech comes about when course materials are not available to students and no or faulty Word Clearing is used.

As long as the Administration of the course is in and all the course materials are available, the sole course Tech is this misunderstood word tech.

28 JUNE 1971RRemimeo Reissued 1 July 1974 as BTBTech & Qual Revised 20 November 1974Supervisors CANCELSChecksheets BTB OF 28 JUNE 1971Cramming Off SAME TITLEChecksheet (Revision in this type style)Word Clearers

29 JUNE 1971RREVISED 17 NOVEMBER 1974RemimeoTech & QualSupervisors CANCELSCramming Offs BTB OF 29 JUNE 1971 Word Clearers SAME TITLE

Word Clearing Series 7R

IMPORTANT

STEPS TO SPEED STUDENT PRODUCT FLOW

(FOR SUPERVISORS AND TECH PRODUCT OFFICERS)

Let us consider each student who is tearing along successfully in his studies to be an F/Ning student.

As a Supervisor, you would want to handle anything that slowed or interfered with such a student’s F/N.

Using dope-off as the only detection of misunderstoods is Supervising at a below F/N level. The F/N went off long before the student reached the point of dope-off, so waiting for dope-off to occur before handling is waiting too long.

Let us look at this from the point of view of the tone scale.

If you consider that each student who is not at tone 5.0 during study has a misunderstood WORD—and if you do something about the misunderstood word—then you can drive up study velocity so that all students are flying along as F/Ning students.

(It’s not a misunderstood phrase or idea or concept but a misunderstood WORD.) This always occurs before the subject itself is not understood.

In comparison with waiting for dope-off to occur before handling the misunderstoods, this method is like high level auditing where slowed F/Ns are taken as reads—rather than TA rise being the read.

An estimation of the tone level of students on one course showed them at about plus or minus 2.5.

This would mean many students had a very tight meter needle if we compare them to the F/Ning student who is flying along successfully.

This could be remedied.

If you had this problem of a group of students at tone 2.5 it could be approached this way:

1. Set up one or more Word Clearers in the classroom.

2. Start with the faster study students, but not those at tone 5.0 or above.

3. If TA above 3.5 or below 2.0 send to Qual for a C/S 53RI.

4. Word Clearer inspects student stats graphs and locates with simple two-way comm what was being studied at the specific period just before the graph levelled or started to go down. If the graph has not done either but just maintained at a low level, the Word Clearer selects out the earliest materials on the course.

5. Do Method 4 on the materials selected on each student, taking each word to F/N.

6. Any student with BIs which do not clear up, or who runs into trouble on Method 4 is sent to Qual for WCCL.

7. Push back the action so it’s done within the first few days of course for all new students, once all existing students are handled.

8. Keep in the M4 for all new students within the first few days as a standard action.

9. Do Method 4 or use other Methods of Word Clearing on all course students at the first sign of a non-F/Ning student.

By eliminating all these slows (misunderstood WORDS), the students’ average points will rise and you will get all students flying along as F/Ning students.

The above actions can be done on all students who are not at tone 5 or above on courses, whether Super literate or on Fast Flow courses.

These are organizing actions to speed production flow, which can be done without shattering stops such as “all students off course onto TRs”.

Quality will rise as well as speed.

Training & Services Aide

Revised by CS—5 Ensign Judy Ziff

In co-ordination with Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

0. Clear the words in the Word Clearing Correction List so as to have it ready for use in case of bog.

1. Fly a rud if no F/N. If TA High or Low do not try to fly an ARC Brk. Do a C/S 53RRR instead. (See Auditor’s Rights C/S Series 1 if any trouble with this pc. If errors in previous word clear sessions use HCOB 21 July 1971 REVISED to handle word clearing corrections needed.)

2. Do not clear these words before assessment

ASSESS.

R Factor: We are going to go over a list of subjects to see if there is any word you didn’t understand while studying these subjects. (Assess the whole list rapidly and clearly, good TR 1 and noting every read from the meter.)

3. Ask the Question, “Is there any word on this list you didn’t understand?” Clear it. Then do Step 5 on it before going on. (Do not reassess this list because there was a list word not understood.)

4. Take the remaining reading items from the best read on down and with E/S pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject End off with a win on the subject

5. “In the subject of ________ what word has been misunderstood?”

He MUST look them up, so have a good dictionary handy. Do not accept “I know the meaning” if the subject or word reads. CLEAR “GRAMMAR” or grammatical words out of a simple book of grammar, not a dictionary.

It isn’t an earlier time he misunderstood that word. It’s an earlier word in that subject and it can be an earlier subject.

Considerations about it and other questions are not touched.

Overts, W/Hs, etc are neglected. They are not done on the subject of the word. They are done in the session ruds.

Just do the process and it will eventually F/N on each chain.

6. When all reads on the first assessment are handled to F/N, REASSESS the whole list. Do not take off the list items already handled.

7. Repeat Step 4.

8. Repeat Step 5.

9. Repeat Step 6, etc.

10. IN CASE OF ANY BOG OR SOMATIC USE THE WORD CLEARING CORRECTION LIST TO CORRECT THE BOG.

11. A persistent F/N should be attained on assessing the whole list as the End Phenomena of the Word Clearing sessions.

“Verbal in Classroom: The student says he does not understand something. The Supervisor has him look earlier in the text for a misunderstood word, gets the student to look it up, use it verbally several times in sentences of his own composition, then read the text that contained it. Then come forward in the text to the area of the subject he did not understand.” LRH (HCOB 24 June 71, WC Series 2, WORD CLEARING)

“By Meter in Classroom: The earlier passage is read by the student while on a Meter and the misunderstood word is found. Then it is fully defined by dictionary. The word is then used several times in sentences of the student’s own verbal composing. The misunderstood area is then reread until understood.” LRH (HCO B 24 June 71, WC Series 2, WORD CLEARING)

“By Meter in Session: A full assessment of many many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and/or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N VGIs.” LRH (HCO B 24 June 71, WC Series 2, WORD CLEARING)

Training & Service Aide and Flag Artist

Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

Situation—Course is slow—down-tone not winning enough. Students are not F/Ning students.

Solution—The Word Clearer calls the students up (starting with the faster students). Gives an R-Factor: “I am not auditing you,” and does Method 4 on selected materials which precede the student slow.

1. If there is no meter read the Word Clearer sends the student directly back to study.

2. If the meter reads the Word Clearer does M4 Word Clearing.

Student after that returns to study.

3. If the student has real Bad Indicators or TA at 3.5 or above or at 2.0 or below, or trouble with M4, the Word Clearer sends him directly to the Qual Word Clearer for a WCCL or C/S 53RI by a Qual Auditor.

---------------

Result of these combined actions = Average student points rise and all students flying along. Quality will rise as well as speed.

“I found out meanings for words that I hadn’t known before. It’s a good action.

W.T.”

“What a maze of unbelievable confusion can lead back to a simple little misunderstood word. Wow! What a win. Thank you.S.T.”

“The only reason a person gives up a study or feels bored about it is because of misunderstood words. Since I started clearing all the words things are different. I was planning to leave the OEC—now I’m looking forward to finishing it.

W.P.”

“Word Clearing! Again when LRH says a misunderstood word or symbol is behind all problems in study he means it. Clear them up and start seeing straight again.

S.S.”

C. SUCCESSES FROM METERED WORD CLEARING IN THE COURSE ROOM:

“I just had some Word Clearing. I really cognited on what product and organize mean. It’s fantastic.A.T.”

“Having the Word Clearer on course is really great. He has saved me what could have been many miserable hours wrestling with misunderstoods.

“Use him. It’s magic.D.G.”

“My last Word Clearing was on the cans and boy did I come out bright! Damn— just do it like it says and what a winner!!! It was so good I told my friend and she’s going in to get some too. Boy you can really have enormous wins doing this Word Clearing as per HCO B. Yes Sir! !S.C.”

“I just want to put down in a success form the wins I’ve had from the Word Clearer. Having him available to find that one word has helped me speed through the courses I’ve had. He may just sit in the course out of the way seeming to be unimportant at times but he is truly a big aid to all students. If you’re having trouble—use the Word Clearer.C.T.”

D. SUCCESSES FROM SESSION WORD CLEARING:

“I just cleared up a whole load of misunderstoods on targeting and also on the Bureaux System. I was amazed how problems on targeting could originate from basic misunderstoods on photography (of all things) and how Bureaux went back to problems in filling out my tax forms for the Government (Jeez! Those tax forms are really screw-ball).

“Thanks to Ron and my Word Clearer.J.B.”

“I just had a great Word Clearing session. It really cleared some big things up. I really loved it. It’s very very basic and powerful.

R.L.”

“It was fantastic! I found a basic big fat ‘rat’ (laughing) called enforced religion and blew it. A lot of things were intermingled with disagreement and protest. I reached several basics and felt tremendous relief to cast off another lie. Thank you Ron for this tech.M.O.”

“The Word Clearing session I had was really terrific. I thought I didn’t have any misunderstoods as I always ‘look them up in the dictionary’, but in the session I unearthed basic misunderstoods which had caused me to go into apathy about discovering things about life—and the reason for blowing from earlier subjects and throwing away old abilities. I’m very excited about what Word Clearing can do. It’s like a Grade as it restores ability.

“My thanks to LRH, for this great tech, and to my Word Clearer, for a great session.P.M.”

“What an experience! I had done it on a Pc and I saw his gains, but having had it done on me really gives a totally new reality.

“It reached so far and into such depths that I couldn’t help but end up exteriorizing.

“Since then I haven’t stopped noticing things I had never seen before. It is the real proof that a block was removed from my ability to duplicate and understand.

“ARC for the environment increased no end.P.D.”

E. SUCCESSES OF WORD CLEARERS:

“Meter Word Clearing is a gas. Students are finding misunderstoods all over the track and blowing tons of charge—brightening up and getting on with it.

W.V.”

“If you consider the main purpose of Word Clearing to assist the student to study faster and easier, then it’s always but always successful. Yet in the time I’ve been doing it I’ve seen case changes and other phenomena which I can only describe as fantastic through finding and clearing words by any of the 3 methods.

“In a great percentage of students I’ve seen major case changes. A year’s hang-up on a Dynamic disintegrate on locating and clearing a couple of words. A remarkable exteriorization on finding a very basic word. A renewed enthusiasm for a five-year contemptuously discarded subject, achieved in less than half an hour. The ‘sourest’ of people turns into a very cheerful person. Several ‘chronic high TA’ cases blow down from 5.0+ and float. Extreme natter and upset gradually fade right away as words were found and located. An amazing return of recall (whole track) and certainty, and many more I could name.

“It’s the first time I’ve spent so much time on a specialized rundown and it sometimes takes a great deal of confront and persistence to get through a student’s confusion but you can be certain that by persisting, no matter which method you’re using, you will always always always increase that student’s understanding.

“And often as a bonus give him a major case win (especially in the auditing rundown).

Word Clearing technology is vital tech and must not become the effect of stops or slows of any kind.

The requirement is that staff and students do get Word Cleared and that the technology is always in use on courses and that there is always—from this point onwards—someone in the Org who is qualified to do full session Word Clearing (M1) AND THAT IT DOES GET DONE.

It is up to the D of T and the Tech and Qual Secs to see that it does get done.

YOUR supreme test is to see that it does get done in spite of all the reasonableness as to why it can’t or why it’s not being done.

Word Clearing is not a fad technology that goes out of fashion—it is vital to all successful study. Word Clearing is as vital to study as TRs are to auditing.

If you can’t get Word Clearing done in your Org, you should telex your nearest FOLO and complain of the fact. If it is not remedied then, telex Flag and report the matter.

Here are some specific points to prevent bugs:

1. That all Org Word Clearers are trained on the Professional Word Clearer’s Course and obtain an OK to Word Clear prior to Word Clearing in Tech or Qual.

2. That Method One Word Clearers who are Class III or above are posted in the Tech Div to deliver Method One Word Clearing to staff and students and Pcs in the HGC.

3. That Tech has its own Word Clearers for students on courses.

4. That Qual has its own Word Clearers, including one or more who is a Class III or above Professional Word Clearing Course Graduate, who has the required Okays to Audit on WCCL.

5. That students and staff who wish to do the Method One Co-Audit on Course be allowed and encouraged to do so.

6. That Course Room Method Two Word Clearing does not require C/S OK and is used by Word Clearers in Tech.

7. That Word Clearing Method 2 on large bodies of data does require C/S OK.

8. That C/Ses who Case Supervise Word Clearing do the Professional Word Clearer’s Course and do the Okay to Audit checksheet plus C/Sing exercises by the Cramming Officer to get an Okay to C/S Word Clearing Method One. The subject of Word Clearing is a particular technical subject and therefore the Course must be studied by all who deliver and Case Supervise Word Clearing Method One and the WCCL.

9. That all metered Word Clearing takes each word to F/N.

10. That all definitions of each word are fully cleared using sentences, per WC Series 51, BTB 16 Dec 73, Rev. 19 July 74, “Word Clearing Errors”.

Training & Services Aide

Revised by CS—5 Ens. Judy Ziff

In co-ordination with Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

This BTB gives an observation by the Flag Word Clearer and some LRH C/S’d Word Clearing Sessions to clarify the EP required from full session Word Clearing.

A) From the Flag Word Clearer:

“The true EP of Word Clearing is an ‘F/Ning List’, meaning the whole list (all items and any added ones) F/N throughout the assessment of the fun list with no reads or slows in the F/N as all the items are called.

“As a point of interest I notice in looking back through the folders that TA action ceased as much as two or three sessions prior to a final full EP.

“The majority of sessions have been about an hour to 2 hours long and have ended on a very big cog and wide, persistent F/N.

“I’ve not then reassessed in that session but have done a new session the next day with the same phenomena. Finally on assessing the list the whole list has F/Ned with no reads on anything.

“It’s taken a number of sessions and in the last one or two the reads have been just stops or slows in an otherwise floating needle.

“I recently heard of someone getting EP in one session. From what I’ve experienced on the LRH C/S’d sessions that sounds suspicious. It’s not really harmful as from what LRH says you can always reassess the list later.

“The still TA and the F/N that just slows as a ‘read’ when items are called is to me a good indicator that we’re getting close to EP—not that we’ve made it yet.

R.H.”

B) Some LRH C/Ses from Word Clearing sessions are included here to give you a better reality on the EP that is to be attained.

i) “Well Done

Several Reading subjects not handled—List not F/Ned.1. Fly a Rud if no F/N.2. Reassess Subject List, leave all items on it always.3. Clear it up.

LRH”

ii) “Well Done

The EP is an F/Ning list.No evidence the whole list F/Ned.THAT is the EP. (May just be an admin error but it’s an error.)1. Fly a Rud if no F/N.2. Assess Subjects List. If it does not fully F/N, handle those that read.3. Reassess list.Get your EP. An F/Ning list.

The whole of HCO B 24 Feb 72, C/S Series 71A, explains fully why one never word clears tests or even tells a person being tested to use a dictionary.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PERSONS

When testing persons who speak a different language than that in which the test is written, GET A TRANSLATED TEST INTO THEIR LANGUAGE OR TRANSLATE THE TEST WITHOUT ANY WORD CLEARING.

MIS Us ON TESTS

Where a person has a misunderstood word on a test, it usually remains misunderstood on the second test. Thus the test remains VALID as nothing has changed in it.

If the person’s IQ rises during processing he may very well also figure out the misunderstood word now on the second test and improve the graph. But that is a valid PROCESSING result, not a false one introduced by clearing test words.

SUMMARY

Auditing works when properly done and it does not need a side action of word clearing a test to better the graph.

Every green body of students will argue and fuss about ideas or confusions in the directions or material they are given to read.

They will generate weird ideas and erroneous concepts of what the text says. They do wrong things and say the text said to. They ask strange ideas of their instructors. They clamor for “clarifications”.

AND AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL THIS IS SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS.

There is not also misunderstood ideas. There is only the misunderstood word which breeds, then, huge towering wrong ideas.

Those who do not want their posts generally do not know what their posts are.

The reason they do not know what their posts are is a host of misunderstood basic words connected with that post.

Put a person on a meter: Have the person read some of the material relating to his post or hat, beginning with the most basic material about it and starting at the very top of the first page, including even the heading and issue numbers.

Watch the meter carefully.

Halt the person at each read and whether he says he knows the meaning or not, if it read, have him look it up in a good (big) dictionary.

Have him use the word in sentences of his own invention. Make him do this as long as it is bringing the TA down. If you get into trouble with him go back and find the misunderstood you missed.

Keep hunting and keep working at it and his misunderstood words will blow and his inability to understand the post will blow.

EXPLANATION

Failed posts and duties trace back to misunderstood words. Until you see it you won’t believe it.

One student who had studied his post for a third of a year was given Method 2 on its materials.

It took 15 hours of Method 2 work, protests, blows, upsets to finally discover that he did not know what POST meant! OR what the words in the title meant.

Another person studied half a year to be an administrator. Yet when he was given his personnel orders appointing him, and Method 2 was done on them, in the first 50 words of the personnel order there were 13 individual misunderstood words each one of which related to the post and were simple English. A similar ratio continued throughout the personnel order.

He was about to fail with a fanfare. Behind post failure the explanation IS misunderstood words.

Psychosis (evil intention) is the only other reason for failure but even this can be handled by auditing today. And even psychosis lessens when misunderstood words are handled.

SUCCESSES

It is not difficult to use Method 2 Word Clearing.

One must be able to handle ARC Breaks, Problems and withholds and read a meter.

One must have a very big dictionary available when little ones fail.

One must be persistent and not buy explanations or let the person run away.

19. ALL METHODS: NOT RECOGNIZING WHEN A PERSON NEEDS A WCCL AND WORD CLEARING OVER THE TROUBLE.

Every student and staff member should get a Method 1. They are different techniques and “needing a Method No. 1 “ is no justification for rabbiting on a student on Method 2 or other methods.

Once you have begun a Method No. 2 you do not ever abandon it until you have found a word that considerably brightens up the student.

CRAMMING OFFICERS & SUPERVISORS

Cramming Officers are of course experts in Word Clearing and should have a meter permanently set up—though most Word Clearing for Cramming is done by Qual Word Clearers.

In handling misunderstoods as a Supervisor or Cramming Officer, particular note should be given to HCO PL 24 Oct 19-68, “Tips in Handling Students” and BTB 22 April 1971, “Cramming”. Their points can and should be used in Word Clearing.

AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL ALTERATION OF MEANINGOR ACTION IS A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD.

This law at once explains why communication, ideas or application become falsified, twisted and corrupted.

This law is of great use in Word Clearing:

A. It indicates who has to be word cleared FAST, at once, NOW, before duties go off the rails any further.

B. It detects the area just before which there is a misunderstood word.

A is useful to the administrator. Knowing it and knowing Word Clearing and being able to do it himself or get it done, he can avoid wholesale dismissals, frantic transfers, general inefficiency and organizational strain.

B is very useful to the Word Clearer.

Example of B. A person can do everything on an order except “File the Folder’s” which he insists on delivering to a wrong room. Look over the order and find where in it talks about filing folders. Just above or beside that will be a misunderstood word. Locate it, get it identified, defined and used in sentences. The person can suddenly file folders!

Just BEFORE or WITH the point a person begins to alter will be found a misunderstood word.

Thus

1. Discover what a person alters.2. Find what came just before that.3. Find the misunderstood word.4. Get it looked up.5. Get it used in sentences as long as it moves a meter tone arm.6. End off on F/N VGIs.

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood.

This is NOT the case.

On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT Dianetics and Scientology words which prevented understanding.

For some reason Dianetics and Scientology words are more easily grasped than simple English.

Words like “a”, “the”, “exist”, “such” and other “everybody knows” words show up with great frequency when doing a Method 2 Word Clearing. They read.

It takes a BIG dictionary to define these simple words fully. This is another oddity. The small dictionaries also suppose everybody knows.

It is almost incredible to see that a university graduate has gone through years and years of study of complex subjects and yet does not know what “or” or “by” or “an” means. It has to be seen to be believed. Yet when cleaned up his whole education turns from a solid mass of question marks to a clean useful view.

A test of schoolchildren in Johannesburg once showed that Intelligence DECREASED with each new year of school!

The answer to the puzzle was simply that each year they added a few dozen more crushing misunderstood words onto an already confused vocabulary that no one ever got them to look up.

Stupidity is the effect of misunderstood words.

In those areas which give Man the most trouble you will find the most alteration of fact, the most confused and conflicting ideas and of course the greatest number of misunderstood words. Take “economics” for example.

The subject of psychology began its texts by saying they did not know what the word means. So the subject itself never arrived. Professor Wundt of Leipzig University in 1879 perverted the term. It really means just “a study (ology) of the soul (psyche)”. But Wundt, working under the eye of Bismarck, the greatest of German military fascists, at the height of German war ambitions, had to deny Man had a soul. So there went the whole subject! Men were thereafter animals (it is all right to kill animals) and Man had no soul, so the word psychology could no longer be defined.

THE EARLIEST MISUNDERSTOOD WORD IN A SUBJECT IS A KEY TO LATER MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS IN THAT SUBJECT.

“HCO B” (Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin), “Remimeo” (Orgs which receive this must mimeograph it again and distribute it to staff), “TR” (Training Drill), “Issue I” (first issue of that date), are the commonest misunderstoods. Because they occur at the beginning of an HCO B!

Then come words like “a”, “the” and other simple English as the next words that often read.

In studying a foreign language it is often found that the grammar words of one’s own language that tell about the grammar in the foreign language are basic to not being able to learn the foreign language.

The test of whether the person understands a word is “does it read on the meter as a fall when he reads the word in the material being cleared”.

That a person says he knows the meaning is not acceptable. Have him look it up no matter how simple the word is.

The principal methods of word clearing are numbered No. 1 for the full in-session rundown, No. 2 for the metered action of clearing up words in specific materials and No. 3 for looking up words seen and not understood by the student or reader.

This is correct sequence for doing the three types of word clearing.

By doing No. 1 in full session, using the list for assessment, one obtains the basic word and meaning errors of the past. By getting these out of the way, it is now possible to clean up current materials much more rapidly with Method 2, where the person is put on a meter and reads the material to another who is watching the meter and catching each read.

With Method I out of the way, Method 2 becomes more rapid.

Method 3 will then be done by the person himself because he now knows better.

No. 2 and No. 3 can be used on and on one or the other.

If you do it backwards, beginning with Method No. 3, much more time is consumed. If Method No. 2 is used without No. I being done, much more work has to be done to clean up an existing piece of study material or text.

So the correct sequence is No. 1, No. 2 and then No. 3.

This does not mean you cannot start with No. 3 or No. 2. It just means it is much faster to do them in correct sequence.

PURPOSE CLEARING

When purpose of the post is to be cleared it is done after Method No. 1 in general and Method No. 2 has been done on the duties and texts of the post.

With all such material handled with word clearing it is time then to do a Purpose Clearing of the person’s job or situation in life.

PROGRAM

Thus a general program could be laid down as

1. Handle all ARC Breaks, present time problems and withholds, or set up the case with a Progress Program.

(In choosing the materials to be cleared in No. 3 above choose the texts, handbooks or materials most closely related to the post and most basic to the post.)

(In choosing the post, if the person is not employed remember that “student”, “housewife” and even “a human being” are posts.)

WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS

When there is no qualified word clearer to word clear others, the program is changed for the word clearer to:

1. Choose 2 word clearers who then work on each other.

2. Any Progress Program for each one.

3. Word Clear the Word Clearing Series by Method 2.

4. Check out on the auditing required for Method 1.

5. Do Method No. 1 on each other.

6. Do Purpose Clearing on each other.

This greatly reduces any errors in application.

(Note: A “Progress Program” or a “Repair Program” is a Scientology auditing program to clean up upsets in life.)

(“ARC Break” means A-Affinity, R-Reality, C-Communication, a break in any one of the three which has caused upset in the past.)

(A Class III Academy Auditor qualification is required to do Method No. I as the action requires assessing and the handling of ARC Breaks, problems and withholds, for which a Class III is trained. Anyone who is able to handle a meter is qualified to do Method No. 2. Any person can do Method No. 3.)

(Purpose Clearing also requires a Class III Academy Auditor.)

(By “meter” throughout this series is meant an “E-Meter” which means an “electro-psychometer”, an instrument which measures emotional reaction by tiny electrical impulses generated by thought.)

4 SEPTEMBER 1971RRevised 15 December 1973Reissued 20 July 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 4 SEPTEMBER 1971RSAME TITLE

Word Clearing Series 22R

HOW TO USE A DICTIONARY

YOU USE A DICTIONARY when Word Clearing. The misunderstood word is looked up in the dictionary and the meaning read out loud and they tell you what the word means so that they know it WITHOUT AGAIN REFERRING TO THE DICTIONARY. Then the word is used in several sentences which clearly indicate that it consults their understanding.

WORDS SOMETIMES HAVE DIFFERENT OR MORE THAN ONE MEANING. YOU HAVE TO KNOW EVERY DIFFERENT MEANING SO ALL DEFINITIONS ARE LOOKED UP AND THE WORD IS FULLY DEFINED. YOU ALSO MUST CHOOSE THE DEFINITION IN USE IN THE SENTENCE SO THAT THE MATERIALS ARE UNDERSTOOD.

THE ALPHABET

Knowledge of the alphabet is the key to finding words quickly. The alphabet must be known cold. The Word Clearer who has to figure out which letter comes first, M or N or U or V, wastes many precious minutes which add up to many wasted hours.

Words are arranged in alphabetical order in all dictionaries. All words beginning with the letter A would be in the first section, all words beginning with the letter B in the second section, and so on. Within these sections the words themselves are arranged so that each second letter in the word is in alphabetical order. (For example, the word fall precedes the word few, which precedes the word field, etc.)

Near the top of each page, printed in bold type, are the first word and the last word on the page (in very large dictionaries it’s every two columns). You can use this as a guide to quickly find the page that contains the word you are looking for.

HOW TO BREAK UP A WORD

Many words are in a combined form and by separating the word you can look up each part in the dictionary. By doing this, the meaning of the word often becomes clearer. Take the word Theo-logy. The first part, Theo- means god or gods and the second part of the word, -logy means discourse or expression or the science, theory or study of. When you put the two parts together, you have the science, theory or study of god. Sometimes in combining forms of words, a letter is changed, as in the word in-dividu(e)-ate.

LOOK UP WORDS IN THE DEFINITION

Many times when looking up a word, you will find in its definition other words which need to be looked up in order to understand the meaning of the original word. Therefore, each word given in the definition must also be clearly defined and understood so that there are no underlying misunderstood words on the word you are looking up. Large child’s dictionaries are good as the definition words are simple.

The so-called “Merriam Webster” dictionaries in the U.S. are almost useless and give out more misunderstoods in definitions than they clarify in clearing, don’t bother with them. The World Book Dictionary available from Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, 60654, U.S.A. is a huge and very good child’s dictionary. In the U.K. the 18 volume Oxford series are good.

USE A BIG ENOUGH DICTIONARY

The smaller dictionaries (paperback or junior) seldom contain complete definitions of a word. Sometimes a most vital part of a definition is omitted. This can involve running around to look for another dictionary or missing the real meaning of the word. So always use a big enough dictionary.

GET THE WORD USED IN SENTENCES

AS LONG AS IT HAS TA

The word, when it reads on the meter, is used over and over in sentences until it has no more TA. It doesn’t matter if the word was looked up in the dictionary as the word will still read if the word is misunderstood.

The dictionary usually has several examples of use. These are not enough. The person has to make up several of his own before he really knows the word.

WORDS OF A SPECIAL TECH REQUIRE A DICTIONARY OF IT IF POSSIBLE.

Many students have been or are engaged in technical professions outside of Scientology such as engineering, computer programming, architecture, etc, and you will need a glossary or dictionary of the terms involved in these technologies.

When Word Clearing someone on his post hat aboard the Flagship or a stationship you would need a nautical dictionary.

BACK TRACK WORDS—GET THE EARLIER MISUNDERSTOOD WORD

Very often you will get a word off the track and you won’t find it in any dictionary or glossary on this planet. You must get the earlier misunderstood word until you get the basic word that was misunderstood.

FOREIGN WORDS—GET A DICTIONARY OF THAT LANGUAGE

There are two kinds of foreign language dictionaries. One is a dictionary entirely in the foreign language. The other is the English/Foreign language dictionary, in which one half of the dictionary is English words with the foreign word next to it, and the other half is the foreign word with its English counterpart next to it. You would use the all foreign dictionary only with a person who knew that language fluently.

YOU USE A DICTIONARY. IT IS ALWAYS A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD, NEVER A CONCEPT OR IDEA.

It is possible for an auditor or student doing word clearing on another to get misunderstood words himself unless he also looks at the definitions and understands them at the same time he is clearing them on the other person. This requires no extra step. In fact it would be rather hard not to also see the definition of the word.

A person trying to “blow” (leave) and refusing further Word Clearing almost always has a HUGE misunderstood on some word not yet located. The correct action is to get him back and FIND AND CLEAR THE WORD.

Not getting a good result using Methods 1, 2 or 3 is cured by using the Word Clearing Correction List, HCO B 21 July 71, Revised 9 August 71.

This Correction List applies to all methods of word clearing.

For instance, if Method 2 goes sour and the student “knew all the words anyway” or “doesn’t understand it any better” or is critical or demonstrates any other unfavorable reactions which do not win through, there is always Word Clearing Correction List.

This list is done by a Class III or above auditor. It is quite miraculous.

Example: Student badly bogged after Method 2 by his twin. Handling: A Class III auditor does the Word Clearing Correction List on him.

The Correction List is handled as per HCO B 14 Mar 71, “F/N Everything”. In other words, one takes all reads on it to Floating Needle. Any other list called for by reads on the Correction List is taken to F/N and when that called-for list F/Ns then one considers that the Word Clearing Correction List line has F/Ned. (Correction List reads on 4. List Error. The auditor takes a list called L4B which corrects lists and makes every read on “L4B” F/N. Then “4. List Error” is marked “F/N”.)

The technology of handling a Word Clearing Correction List is all covered in the general materials of auditing.

Not knowing how to use a Meter can cause trouble.

A special Course in using an E-Meter is available. The E-Meter Drill Book gives all the drills. It does not take long to learn. Also E-Meters are abundantly available today.

Learning to be a Class III or preferably a Class IV Academy Auditor is not difficult IF one uses word clearing!

All word clearing is done under the discipline of The Auditor’s Code.

One’s “TRs” (TR = Training drills for auditing) can be straightened out on a TR Course on which one learns to confront, to speak so one can be heard, to acknowledge, to be able to repeat commands and to handle originations by the student.

Troubles in word clearing, then can be listed as coming from lack of training. So anyone doing word clearing should organize himself to (I) Do a TR Course, (2) Learn to use and acquire an E-Meter, (3) Learn the Auditor’s Code and, (4) If not one already, learn to be an Academy Class III Auditor.

Knowing how to do 1 to 3 above is essential to do Method 2 Word Clearing. And the skills under (1) to (3) are very easy to acquire. Further, it is not all that difficult to become a Class III Auditor.

People sometimes think only someone who wants to be a professional auditor studies in the Academy, a false impression. One can’t imagine how a father or businessman or mother or clerk or official could succeed without knowing the basics of human reaction and how to handle them. Someone who is a Class III or Class IV knows how. The real professional usually becomes a Class VI and the real experts are the VIIIs, IXs and Xs. It’s a matter of how expert you want to be. A Flag Ship Class XII could turn a severe mental case from raving lunacy to not only sane but bright and normal in about 8 or 9 hours and a normal person to a genius in 15 to 20 hours.

But here we are dealing with the whole range of the human mind.

In word clearing Method 2 one certainly should know his “TRs”, his Auditor’s Code and his Meter. And for Method I it takes a Class III Academy Auditor.

Almost all troubles will be found to stem from an omission of these requirements AND not using Word Clearing on the materials one is studying to achieve these skills.

Very few troubles actually will be encountered if this HCO B is followed.

Word Clearing IS a precision technology and there IS something to know about it as it has never before been known.

You will begin to get an idea of how much library you will need when you have done a large number of word clearings.

The important thing is to realize that a library is necessary.

In an org this will be in Department 14 under the Librarian.

The greatest demand will be for dictionaries of many kinds.

First there is the consideration of just English dictionaries. Several, including large ones, should be to hand. Those that use big words to define words keep a pc chasing around and around and are of course poor dictionaries. Often one dictionary gives a better definition than another. So an assortment of English dictionaries is a first requirement.

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 NOVEMBER 1971RREVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974 RemimeoURGENT

Word Clearing Series 25RTape Course Series 6R

TAPES, HOW TO USE

(Reissued 23 November 1971 verbatimadditionally as a Tape Course Series HCO B.)

FOREWORD

The most appalling ignorance has existed on the use of magnetic recording tapes.

It is therefore of the greatest possible importance that the subject of tape use be grasped and gotten rapidly into effect.

Probably half the technology of admin and tech exists only on tape.

Tapes, incorrectly used, can be the source of endless misunderstoods. Because tapes have been almost uniformly misused in the past, these misunderstoods have added up to a general misunderstood on the subject of tapes themselves.

Students have been known to copy down the whole tape so they could study it. This is a complete waste of time and misuse of student study hours.

Some orgs even played advanced study tapes to the public.

European orgs have even played translation quality tapes (usually not auditorium quality) of OEC Volumes as raw public lectures! (And lost their audience through lack of quality and inaudible and strange words.)

Casual staff briefing tapes, not okay for release, of very bad quality, have been played to staffs of other orgs and the public.

There is no end to the abuses.

Therefore, for the benefit of understanding words alone, it is VITAL that tapes be properly used and not abused.

TYPES OF TAPES

There are four classes of tapes. These are:

1. Course study tapes.

2. Public lecture tapes.

3. Briefing tapes.

4. Model performance tapes.

COURSE STUDY TAPES

Tapes made for courses are of two varieties:

(a) English, usually by LRH.

(b) Translations, done by translators.

They are FOR COURSE USE. This is what the org sells—training on Tech or Admin.

These tapes appear on checksheets and are done at the points of checksheets where they are called for, and are done by Method 2 for tapes or Method 3 for tapes as required.

The foreign language tape courses are done from a special tape checksheet and are done exactly as laid down by Method 2 or Method 3.

None of these tapes are all written out by the student and then studied. This is a waste of time.

Further, such tapes are NOT played straight through with the student making notes of any misunderstood words “to look up later”. This will blank out the tape content on the student’s mind and knock out the student.

So to play a course tape straight through to any student is to cause a stupidity and a blow. It also does not matter whether the student takes notes of misunderstoods or not. A COURSE TAPE IS NOT PLAYED STRAIGHT THROUGH. Only the earphone, footpedal start-stop control procedures are used.

A course tape is NEVER PLAYED TO A GROUP OF STUDENTS. When played to more than one student, some student is going to get a misunderstood and there goes a blank student.

Two students don’t even listen to a tape even on Method 2 Tape Word Clearing! One has the meter and footpedal and the other the earphones. The word clearer stops at each read. He does not otherwise listen.

Course tape quality must be good. All the words must be hearable and not inaudible. They must not be slurred or hard to make out.

The earphones and tape player used must be high fidelity just any old earphones won’t do.

The tape player “playing head” across which the tape passes must be clean—done by a cotton swab on a toothpick and cleaning fluid. The tape coating comes off on the playing head and after a time the sound is badly blurred.

Using a course tape any other way is now FORBIDDEN. Tests have shown that violations of this are the reason for student failures and blows and out-Ethics.

It goes without saying that the general handling of tape players and tapes must be well learned and practiced by Course Supervisors and students.

PUBLIC LECTURE TAPES

The probable reason stats fall after tape congresses is the misunderstood word.

Congresses seldom use really high fidelity equipment. Further, tape copying is often done by outside firms and the tape copies themselves may be of poor quality. The combination is deadly.

We looked for the reason for stat drops after tape congresses and this is the only explanation which has come forth.

Doingness congresses that are mainly seminars have been very successful. (By doingness is meant TRs—training drills—and other ACTIONS.) The relay of data to a public whose vocabulary is usually inadequate is not likely to win, as it hits their faulty vocabulary for one thing and uses new words for another. You can show somebody how to do things far better than you can tell him.

This then extends into Div 6 Introductory Actions as well. The relay of data comes AFTER the demonstration in action terms.

The possibility of possible bad playing speakers, possible low tape copy quality, the barriers of languages not learned in the first place and the introduction of new mental concepts combine into a hurdle that makes tape or film public presentation adventurous.

Listening to public type tapes, by using footpedal start-stop tape players, is being put in a special public course category.

Raw public tape and film presentations are however a must to keep the flavor and meaning of Dianetics and Scientology. So ensure excellent quality tapes and equipment are used with correct tapes for that public and you will have success.

BRIEFING TAPES

These are not to be confused with Special Briefing Course Tapes.

A briefing tape is done to brief or debrief missionaires or to record a conference or to record special instructions to a person or group. It can then be used for reference or to settle any dispute. It can also be used to inform a staff or several staffs.

A briefing tape is then a tape designed for a special and informed audience.

If the tape quality is good and the audience is already a familiar or trained audience, a briefing tape can be played ONLY TO THE AUDIENCE FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED.

To do otherwise is to risk misunderstood words and non-comprehension of what it is all about in general.

“Ron’s Journals” were staff briefing tapes. They began to be used for public. While they were not without success, one could no longer brief staffs on this line and the line was therefore cut. One could not make them with a security that they would be played to staffs.

An isolated briefing to a single executive on “these are our future hopes” has been thereafter used as a staff briefing of many orgs as “these are your orders”.

Any tape is designed for a specific public.

Briefing tapes are especially subject to abuse by being played to wrong publics.

Any briefing tape which contains specific orders and plans which could be misunderstood should be played only to the individuals concerned with a stop-start footpedal and Method 3 Word Clearing, not going past any misunderstood.

After a person has been briefed verbally, it is very revelatory to then Word Clear 2 the tape made at the same time. It will often be found that misunderstood words lead to potential alter-is in the actions required.

Tape in this instance is an enormous help in assisting and clarifying briefings.

A group can be briefed if thereafter each is Word Cleared Method 3 or 2 on the tape afterwards, using standard tape word clearing.

Needless to say such tapes must be of good quality.

MODEL PERFORMANCE TAPES

Tapes exist which give a standard of performance.

In Dianetic and Scientology Auditing student auditors have never been known to achieve a high standard of session presence and Communication (and accordingly high results) without the careful study of tapes made of similar sessions by high level auditors.

A student musician is unlikely to achieve professional performance level unless he has heard a professional play.

It would take a film or live demonstration to communicate a high standard of performance in a purely action subject. For instance for centuries no one believed that Robin Hood could split his first target arrow with a second until a new generation worked on it and a few painfully recovered the lost art of archery and then demonstrated how it was done for others to see.

Tapes and films serve a vital purpose in maintaining a performance standard.

As these tapes and films show HOW it is done and the ATMOSPHERE and RHYTHM of ACTION they are not subject to word clearing.

CONCLUSION

Tape and film training is vital, valuable and has its role.

But like showing a child how to open a book and read, there is exact technology in USING tapes and films.

The first thing one must realize is that the use of tape and film is itself a technical subject that must be studied and learned. One does not naturally know it.

The failures of universities to make educated and civilized men is because their own professors know nothing of misunderstood words and so lectured happily on and on to a snoring student body. One professor of physics used to open the classroom windows wide in freezing winter “to keep his students from going to sleep in HIS class”. And then stood on the platform and defined nothing as he rambled on. All it did for his class was give them coughs between snores!

The handling and use of tape and film in training and administration IS a subject.

By failing to know it and use that information, one can block the road for himself and all others to being learned and being free.

Method 3 Word Clearing must be done routinely by any Course student. It is done by the student himself and also by the Supervisor on his students.

METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING ON TAPES

1. The tape machine and tape are set up exactly as per Tape Course Series 7, BTB 25 Nov 71 R, Rev. 21 Nov 74, “Setting Up and Using a Tape Player”.

2. Whilst listening to the tape, if the student hears a word he does not understand, he immediately stops the tape by means of the foot pedal start-stop control.

3. He writes the word down in his notebook and immediately looks up the word exactly per BTB 4 Sept 71R, Rev. 15 Dec 73, Word Clearing Series 22R, “How to Use a Dictionary”, clearing all definitions and any not understood or misunderstood words in the definitions, and putting each into sentences.

4. Student then checks the tape for the exact use of the word in the tape.

5. Student then rewinds the tape to just before the word cleared above and relistens to the section to ensure that it is understood.

6. The student continues listening to the tape until he encounters another word which he does not understand, at which point he does the actions outlined in 3, 4 and 5 above.

7. If at any point the student becomes bored, feels blank, washed out, not there, starts yawning, dopes off or wants to blow, he must recognize that he has gone past a misunderstood word.

8. The student must turn the tape back to the point where he was interested and alert and check the section just after that for the misunderstood word or words, and clear them according to steps 3, 4 and 5.

9. The student then rewinds the tape back to the end of the section where he felt fine and relistens to the tape from that point on, picking up and clearing any other words found.

10. If the student starts to feel squashed, gets a headache, stomach feels funny, gets dizzy from time to time, or eyes start to hurt, the student should locate the section on the tape where he had a lack of mass, and either go and find the actual mass under discussion and feel and inspect it, if possible, or find a photo of it, or demonstrate the mass in clay with labels, or use his demo kit to demonstrate the mass. The student should then relisten to the rest of the tape from that section on.

11. The Supervisor must be alert to the manifestations of lack of mass and misunderstood words and quickly see that the correct handling is done rapidly. If he does not handle, he will shortly end up with no students.

12. If a student cannot locate the misunderstood word using Method 3, either on his own or with the Supervisor, the Supervisor should apply Method 2 Word Clearing to that section of the tape to quickly locate and handle the misunderstood words. If the student’s TA is above 3.5 or below 2.0, end off and send the student to Qual for a C/S 53RI.

13. A Supervisor should check students who have just completed a tape and look tired or not there, by asking questions about the tape. If the student cannot answer or gives a wrong or altered answer, the Supervisor should make the student go back and relisten to the tape and find and clear the misunderstood words.

The above procedure is very simple and the essential ingredients to have F/Ning students who know and can apply their materials.

Revised by CS—5 Ens. Judy Ziff

In co-ordination with FlagMission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

27 NOVEMBER 1971RRevised & Reissued 21 November 1974 as BTBRemimeoCANCELSHCO BULLETIN OF 27 NOVEMBER 1971SAME TITLE

Tape Course Series 9

Word Clearing Series 27R

METHOD 2 WORD CLEARING ON TAPESAND TAPE COURSES

Method 2 Word Clearing is done on the student by another student trained to do so or the Supervisor or a Word Clearer.

The person doing the Method 2 Word Clearing must be trained in the use of an E-Meter and instant reads.

There are two ways in which Method 2 Word Clearing can be used.

As a study remedy on the area of current difficulty.

As a study method on the whole material currently being studied (or the whole of previously studied materials).

When used as a study remedy on the area of current difficulty, Method 2 is simply used to locate the misunderstood word or words that could not be located by Method 3 Word Clearing. It is done then and there in the classroom or Qual and does not require C/S OK.

This is done by locating and clearing the word that caused the E-Meter needle to read (small fall, fall, etc).

The student having Method 2 Word Clearing done on him holds the cans of the E-Meter (E-Meter electrodes) while he listens to the tape. He does nothing else, other than listen to the tape.

3. The student is having trouble with the tape or the subject. The difficulty hasn’t been resolved and the word causing the trouble hasn’t been located.

4. The Course Supervisor or a trained Word Clearer now takes over to handle the difficulty with Method 2 Word Clearing.

5. The student either takes the tape he is having trouble with to the Supervisor/Word Clearer’s desk (where another tape machine and an E-Meter are set up)—or the Supervisor takes an E-Meter and sets it up at the student’s tape machine.

6. The student is asked at which point on the tape he became bogged. He is then asked for the point on the tape when he was doing OK. The tape is then reversed to the exact end point of where he was doing well. The first MU will be just after that and there may be others.

7. The Supervisor/Word Clearer operates the foot pedal start-stop control of the tape machine as well as the E-Meter, and does worksheets of the Word Clearing.

8. The student listens to the tape. He also holds the cans of the E-Meter while he is listening to the tape. If the student’s TA is above 3.5 or below 2.0, send the student to Qual for rapid C/S Series 53RI handling and return to course.

9. As the tape plays, the Supervisor/Word Clearer watches his Meter needle. As soon as the needle reads (small fall, fall, etc) the Supervisor/Word Clearer stops the machine by use of the foot pedal, and asks the student for the misunderstood word.

It is extremely important that the Supervisor/Word Clearer stop the tape player at the exact moment of the Meter read, otherwise he may be asking the student for three or four or even six or eight words later than the reading word, and thus cause undue difficulty for the student.

10. If the student can’t spot the word, the Supervisor/Word Clearer replays the last short section to assist the student to find the MU.

11. If the student still can’t spot the word, the Supervisor/Word Clearer turns the tape back a little further and replays that whole section, using the tape counter numbers to guide his stopping and starting actions. He locates the MU.

12. All misunderstood words on tapes are cleared according to BTB 4 Sept 71R, Rev. 15 Dec 73, 20 July 74, WC Series 22R, “How to Use a Dictionary”, clearing each word to F/N.

13. The student keeps hold of the cans and the Supervisor/Word Clearer locates the word in the dictionary, understands the definition himself and then holds it for the student to read.

14. The student reads all definitions out loud whilst the Word Clearer watches the needle in order to pick up any MUs in the definitions.

15. The Word Clearer ensures that the student puts each definition into sentences to ensure the word is fully understood, to F/N.

16. The Word Clearer ensures that the student has clarified the exact definition of the word as used in the tape, and plays back that section of the tape for the student, in order to ensure it is cleared.

17. The tape is now turned back to the beginning of the section where the student ran into trouble to double check that it is now resolved. There should be no reads, and F/N, on that section of the material.

If there are any more reads, these are picked up and cleared, and the section replayed again, until there are no more reads on that section, and F/N on the repair.

18. The trouble is now resolved and the student is returned to normal study, where he is expected to apply Method 3 Word Clearing as a routine.

19. If the student’s difficulty has not resolved, the student is sent to Qual for a Word Clearing Correction List, which will locate the cause of the trouble.

20. The student is returned to Course when the difficulty has been located and handled, resulting in an F/Ning student.

METHOD 2 WORD CLEARING AS A STUDY METHODON TAPE MATERIALS

On some professional checksheets or special staff training actions, all the materials of the course are required to be done Method 2 Word Clearing. Also when earliest materials are being Word Cleared Method 2.

Method 2 done for this purpose has steps as follows.

A. The Case Supervisor OK must be obtained to ensure that the student is not in the middle of a major auditing rundown or process or due for an Interiorization Rundown, etc. (Word Clearing M2 can be done between the processes of a program.)

B. The tape player is set up as given earlier.

C. Note: If the student has a high or low TA on the Meter (above 3.5 or below 2.0 after the Meter has been turned on for a few minutes to warm up and the cans have been warmed by the student holding them for a few minutes) or if the student is in pain or upset—the Word Clearer does not start metered Word Clearing. The Word Clearer informs the student, “I’m sorry we will not be starting Word Clearing at this time.” The Word Clearer reports this in writing with the student’s TA position to the Supervisor who forwards the report to the DPE so that the needed C/S Series 53RI session can be given the student. This must be done quickly so he can be gotten on to his Word Clearing. The student is immediately called in for C/S 53RI handling to the result of an F/Ning student at which point the student is returned to his course.

D. Starting the Word Clearing is done by informing the student, “I am not auditing you.” The tape is then started and the procedure is as given earlier in this BTB for Method 2. The only difference being that the whole materials are covered in this manner with the Word Clearer taking up and clearing all reading words (and any words originated by the student as misunderstood).

E. Each word handled is cleared to Floating Needle on the Meter.

F. The Word Clearing period is ended on Floating Needle.

G. Note: If the Word Clearing bogs down and it can’t be resolved, the Word Clearer or Supervisor must end off and send the Worksheets to the Review Auditor in Dept 14 at once, who will handle by doing a Word Clearing Correction List.

CAUTION: THE FESTIVAL IS A DEPT 14 ACTION.DO NOT PERMIT IT TO STOP ALL PRODUCTION.

The whole cycle under way in a Word Clearing Festival involving a whole staff is handled as a major auditing cycle. Ruds are flown and each session is case supervised by the C/S to Festival Completion.

Method 2 is not done on someone incomplete on Method I—this is mixing cycles on the same type of subject matter. Normally, Method 2 can and is done any time.

If a Pc is having a Review auditing action, Method 2 should not be done as this may interfere with Int or List correction actions.

When a Word Clearing Festival is under way, no other auditing rundowns are done on staff, barring accidents requiring assists. Only set-up actions for Word Clearing are done.

In a Word Clearing Festival, the following actions are done on all staff:

Any staff who were not F/N VGIs in last exam or who are not at a rest point in a program, must either get set-up actions or complete the case to a rest point and F/N VGIs before C/Sed for Method 1. So be prepared for a number of Review actions at the start of the Festival.

One final point, Method 2 is done with the Pc reading the hat materials aloud and each reading word is taken to F/N before re-reading the relevant section and proceeding with the hat.

10 DECEMBER 1971RRevised & Reissued 17 November 1974 as BTBAll QualD of T CANCELSSupervisors HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1971Word Clearers SAME TITLEStudents

Word Clearing Series 29R

WORD CLEARING—OK TO DO

The following points concerning Course Word Clearing have recently been clarified by Ron.

1. Course Word Clearing can be done on a student currently being audited.

2. An F/N does not have to be obtained (by rudiments or talking the TA down) before Course Room Word Clearing can be started.

3. If the TA is high (above 3.5) or low (below 2.0) or the student is upset (or becomes upset) this must be reported at once to Department 14 and handled by a Word Clearing Correction List or C/S 53RI.

4. Course Room Word Clearing must be started with the statement “I am not auditing you”.

5. Course Room Word Clearing does not have to be C/Sed. (Worksheets must be made however, and sent to the student’s preclear folder.)

6. The student does not have to see the Pc Examiner after having metered Word Clearing on course; but the Student C/S should be alert for any flubs, especially words not cleared to F/N.

7. If a Tech Word Clearer flubs or causes upsets on Word Clearing, the correct action is for the Supervisor to send the Word Clearer to Cramming. Qual crams all flubs in Word Clearing.

8. All metered Classroom Word Clearing takes each word to F/N.

9. A Supervisor can order any student who is not an F/Ning student to Word Clearing.

A student must know how to keep himself F/Ning (tearing along successfully in his studies). He should be able to handle anything that slows or interferes with such an F/N.

Students don’t put themselves or each other on a meter to locate a misunderstood word. It’s the Supervisor who meters a student to find the misunderstood word(s) as per these Bulletins, using the F/Ning student system:

For a student using dope-off as the only detection of misunderstoods is studying at below F/N level. The F/N went off long before the student reached the point of dope-off, so waiting for dope-off to occur before handling is waiting too long. As soon as your study stats dropped for half a day or you aren’t quite so “bright” as you were a few minutes ago is the time to look for the misunderstood word. (It’s not a misunderstood phrase or idea or concept but a misunderstood WORD.) This always occurs before the subject itself is not understood.

This is Method 3 Word Clearing:

1. The student notices he is not flying along and is not “bright” or it could be just plain lack of enthusiasm or too long on one item on the checksheet or yawning or disinterest or doodling or daydreaming, etc.

2. He then looks earlier in the text for a misunderstood word. There is one always, there are no exceptions. It may be that the misunderstood word is two pages or more back, but it is always earlier in the text from where he is now.

3. The word is found. He recognizes it in looking back for it. If the student can’t find the misunderstood by looking back for it, he can get another student to spot check him. The other student takes words from the text that could be misunderstood and asks: “What is the definition of the word ?” seeing if the student gives a correct definition.

4. The student looks up the word found in a dictionary, thoroughly clears each definition and uses it verbally several times in sentences of his own composition until he has obviously demonstrated that he understands the word by the composition of his sentences—and feels fine about it.

5. Then the student reads the text that contained the misunderstood word. If he isn’t now “bright”, eager to get on with it, back up tone, etc, then there is another misunderstood word earlier in the text. This is found by repeating steps 2-5.

6. When he is bright, up tone, etc (an F/Ning student), the student comes forward from where the misunderstood word was in the text to the area of the subject he did not understand (where step 1 began).

He will now be enthusiastic with his study of the subject unless a misunderstood word was missed, not fully cleared, or there’s an earlier one in the text. If so, do steps 2-5. If the student is now enthusiastic, he continues on with studying.

Students do NOT have to be Word Cleared Method 2 on the total of any course.

Method 3 Word Clearing can be used by students on each other or by a Supervisor or Word Clearer whenever necessary.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1972RARemimeo All Supervisors (Revised 26 March 1972HPCSC and 8 July 1974.Mini Crse (Changes in this type style. )Super CrseWord ClearingCrse Word Clearing Series 32RAEst Off CrseDept 13Personnel URGENT—IMPORTANT—URGENT

Vital for all Supervisors,Est-Os, and Cramming Officers.

WORD CLEARING METHOD 4

Tech and Admin Cramming Officers, Word Clearers and Course Supervisors use Method 4 Word Clearing when fishing for a misunderstood word. E.g. Cramming Officers use it to fish for misunderstood words concerning what the person is being crammed on. Word Clearers use it on Interns when the Intern needs a retrain or retread or even if the Intern is sent to Cramming. Course Supervisors use it in the classroom CONTINUOUSLY ON NON-F/N STUDENTS or queries.

The whole idea is the person requiring the Method 4 Word Clearing has a Cramming Order or is not an F/Ning student because of confusion as a result of a misunderstood word, as per Word Clearing Series 16R or omitted materials.

Method 4 fishes for the misunderstood word, finds it, clears it to F/N, looks for another in the area until there are no more with an F/N VGIs, then moves to another area, handles that—eventually all the misunderstoods that resulted in the Cramming Order or non-F/N student are handled.

It requires no C/S OK for it to be done. Method I is not a prerequisite to Method 4.

E-Meter Drill No. 21 is the E-Meter Drill to be drilled on Method 4. It’s the method of fishing for a cognition.

Requires proper application of TRs and metering. All Supervisors, Est-Os, and Dept 13 personnel to check out on, drill, and apply this tech AS IT IS VITAL STUDY TECH.

METHOD 4 WORD CLEARING

1. Give person the cans, state, “I am not auditing you.”

2. Ask while watching the meter:

“Is there any part of what you’re studying you did not fully get?”

Trace the read. Use “fishing for a cog” drill (per HCO B 25 June 70, Issue III) if needed.If no read the question may be varied, e.g.

“Is there any part of the materials you’re studying you disagree with?” or “Is there any part of what you’re studying you feel you could not apply?” or “In (material being checked) is there anything you didn’t understand?”

Let the student tell you briefly. Do NOT tell him the data.

Verify that his study pack is complete as the data might have been omitted.

Also he might never have read the pack at all.

If the data was missing do not go on to Step 3. See that he gets the complete pack and reads it. Then repeat Method 4.

If the person just has not read the materials do not go on to 3 but get him to read the materials. Then repeat Method 4.

3. Get what it is then ask:

“What word was misunderstood just before that?”

Meter reads, Word Clearer finds the word, never accepting a confusion but finds the word giving the read (SF, F, LF, BD), gets it looked up in a dictionary and used in sentences until it can be seen from the sentences that the student now understands the word and the word F/Ns. All the tools of Study Tech and Word Clearing are at the Word Clearer’s disposal to take the word to F/N. The Word Clearer does not stop at one misunderstood but makes sure all are cleared.

4. Repeat 2 & 3 until the materials are fully cleared up and any and all misunderstoods or confusions handled.

5. If the action bogs when used in the classroom the student must be sent to Qual for handling and Supervisor to Cramming on TRs and metering and drilling on this procedure.

The correct action is a W/C CORRECTION LIST DONE ON THE STUDENT AND HANDLED.

Of course if the above question F/Ns on asking, there would be no misunderstoods on the material being checked, but the person is in Cramming, not an F/Ning student or whatever, so there obviously are misunderstood words to be found and handled.

Look at HCO PL 16 Feb 72, “The Purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement”. It says this Dept “reaches and looks for business all over the org and brings it in”. So someone with stats down—student or post stats, confusion about what to do, overloaded, can’t seem to handle it, how do you do this, etc, etc, are all indicators of misunderstood words as the person is saying confusion, confusion. Well, underneath the confusion is a misunderstood word just as Word Clearing 1 6R says.

Method 4 Word Clearing is what is used in doing and achieving the purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement, HCO PL 16 Feb 72.

One of the ways the Word Clearers in this Dept do the job is using Method 4 Word Clearing.

METHOD 4 IS USED BY COURSE SUPERVISORS TO HANDLE ALL STUDENT QUERIES ABOUT CONTENTS OF COURSE MATERIALS.

The reason students ask questions about “What is meant” is because of omitted pack materials from their checksheet, failure to read what they have OR BECAUSE OF A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD JUST BEFORE THEY GOT CONFUSED.

The Super has to know only where the materials are and BE SMART ENOUGH TO DO METHOD 4 INSTEAD OF GIVING THE STUDENT ALTER-ISED ANSWERS THAT STOP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.

Remimeo Revised & Reissued 24 June 1974 as BTBWord Clearers Revised 20 November 1974SupervisorsCrammingDir Correction CANCELSDir Pers Enh BTB OF 14 MARCH 1972RQual I and I SAME TITLE

(Revisions in this type style)

Word Clearing Series 33RA

WORD CLEARING LINES

All students or staff in Dept 14 Dept of Personnel Enhancement for Word Clearing must be sent immediately to the Pc Examiner at the end of the Word Clearing. The Exam Form and all worksheets in all cases are sent to Tech Services for inclusion in the person’s Pc Folder.

Any Red Tagged Word Clearing or Qual Pc must be handled within 24 hours with the Word Clearing Correction List or appropriate correction for other actions and the Word Clearer crammed.

Qual has many tools to handle a bogged or failed student:

1. Word Clearing Correction List, and handle.

2. Method One for Staff Students (where not done earlier). (Requires C/S clearance.) Now done in Tech Div.

3. Method 2 on first materials or tape and on early materials on the current or earlier level or Course to EP. (Requires C/S clearance.)

When Qual gets a bogged student, the student is routed to the Cramming Officer. One of the first areas investigated is Word Clearing (correction required or just not done earlier). The Cramming Officer also ensures that the Supervisor or Word Clearer is brought in and crammed on errors or omissions in Word Clearing.

Word Clearing Method 1, Method 2 on Hat plus Post Purpose Clearing cycles require C/S clearance and OK first. When scheduling a staff member for this, the appropriate C/S gets the Pc Folder from Tech Services Staff Section and checks the staff member’s Pc programme for the inclusion of Method One, Method 2 on Hat and Post Purpose Clearing. This must not be done whilst the staff member is on a major level or rundown.

Revised by CS—5 Ensign Judy Ziff

In co-ordination with Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow

Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

(Paragraph 3, re: Cramming Off notauthorized to issue OK’s to WordClear, has been deleted.)

Word Clearing is a technical subject and is mastered in the Academy on the Professional Word Clearer’s Course.

The course graduate then goes to Qual, gets his Qual OK to Operate an E-Meter, then the Qual OK to Word Clear, naming which methods, at which point the Word Clearer is eligible for posting in Tech or Qual. Naturally, the OK to Word Clear is monitored by the Class of the Auditor and only Class IIIs or above are granted the OK to do Method One Word Clearing in the HGC.

All OKs to Word Clear already issued to persons who have not done the Professional Word Clearer’s Course are considered temporary and the Course must be done rapidly to retain the OK.

Naturally all Word Clearers check out on all new Word Clearing Series HCO Bs as they come out. Any new Word Clearing technique issued is Word Cleared, star-rated and drilled and an additional Qual OK to Word Clear on that action is issued by the Cramming Officer.

Revised by Flag Mission 1234 I/C CPO Andrea Lewis

Approved by the Commodore’s Staff Aides and The Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

It is totally essential that this Word Clearing Correction List be used to handle ANY AND ALL TROUBLE ON ANY WORD CLEARING.

If a student or staff member runs into trouble during or shortly after any Word Clearing, it is the Word Clearing Correction List which is used to correct the situation. It would be a programme violation to introduce any other method of handling than the Word Clearing Correction List.

It is hereby firmly established that any trouble on Word Clearing must be handled with the Word Clearing Correction List and no other action.

NOTE: WORDS SOMETIMES HAVE DIFFERENT OR MORE THAN ONE MEANING. YOU HAVE TO KNOW EVERY DIFFERENT MEANING SO ALL DEFINITIONS ARE LOOKED UP AND THE WORD IS FULLY DEFINED. YOU ALSO MUST CHOOSE THE DEFINITION IN USE IN THE SENTENCE SO THAT THE MATERIALS ARE UNDERSTOOD.

Assess this list once through noting reads (Method 5).

Carry all reads to an F/N or get the reading item fully repaired to F/N.

22. WORD CLEARING IN THE MIDDLE OF ANOTHER INCOMPLETE AUDITING CYCLE _________ (2WC E/S to F/N. Get which cycle Pc is on and by folder inspection evaluate which one needs to be completed first— make sure it is fully noted on Pgm to complete Word Clearing if the other action is handled first.)

25. NOT GETTING THE BASIC WORD _________ (Find which subject/word is incomplete by 2WC and then take it to EP. F/N each word.)

26. NOT GETTING THE BASIC SUBJECT _________ (Find which subject is incomplete by 2WC and then take it to EP. F/N each word.)

27. AUDITOR FORGOT TO GO EARLIER SIMILAR _________ (Get which subject/word and take to EP—if several subjects have been started, take first one semi-run and flatten, then next, etc.)

28. TOLD THE WORD CLEARER IT WAS UNDERSTOOD JUST TO GET RID OF HIM _________ (Get the word plus any others and clear them each to F/N.)

29. TA WAS IN A FALSE RANGE _________ (Handle with False TA Checklist per HCO B 29 Feb 72R, then clean up the by-passed charge with 1. Assess for best read a. TA worries, b. F/N worries. 2. Then 2WC times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. 3. Rehab any overrun due to false TA.)

30. USED THE WRONG SIZED CANS _________ (False TA Checklist. Work out the right sized cans with the Pc.)

In learning the meaning of words small dictionaries are very often a greater liability than they are a help.

The meanings they give are often circular: Like “CAT: An Animal.” “ANIMAL: A Cat.” They do not give enough meaning to escape the circle.

The meanings given are often inadequate to get a real concept of the word.

The words are too few and even common words are often missing.

HUGE dictionaries can also be confusing as the words they use to define are often too big or too rare and make one chase through 20 new words to get the meaning of the original.

The best dictionaries are the very large child’s dictionaries like THE WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY (A Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary published exclusively for Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60654 or Doubleday and Company. Thorndike-Barnhart has a whole series of dictionaries of which this is a special one. Field Enterprises has offices in Chicago, London, Rome, Sydney, Toronto. The World Book Dictionary is in two volumes, each 28l/2 cm [11 1/4 inches] by 22 cm [8 5/8 inches] by 5.8 cm [21/4 inches], so it is no small dictionary!) (Also it defines Dianetics correctly and isn’t determined on a course of propaganda to re-educate the public unlike Merriam Webster’s dictionaries.)

Little pocket book dictionaries may have their uses for traveling and reading newspapers, but they do get people in trouble. I have seen people find a word in them and then look around in total confusion. For the dinky dictionary did not give the full meaning or the second meaning they really needed.

Method 5 Word Clearing is a System wherein the word clearer feeds words to the person and has him define each. It is called Material Clearing. Those the person cannot define must be looked up.

This method may be done without a meter. It can also be done with a meter.

The reason the Method is needed is because the person often does not know that he does not know. Therefore Method 4 has its limitations as the meter does not always read.

The actions are very precise.

The word clearer asks “What is the definition of _____?” The person gives it. If there is any doubt whatever of it, or if the person is the least bit hesitant, the word is looked up in a proper dictionary.

This method is the method used to clear words or auditing commands or auditing lists.

(Example: There has just been a goof resulting in an upset. The goof centered around “radio” “repairs” “operation” “operator” “electronics” etc.)

2. The Word Clearer, without showing the person the definitions, asks him to define each word.

3. The Word Clearer checks the definition on his list for general correctness not word for word but meaning.

4. Any slow or hesitancy or misdefinition is met with having the person look the word up and look up any word in the definition the person does not have a grasp of.

5. One completes his list.

6. By then the person has been jarred into looking further by the above actions. The Word Clearer asks “What other word relating to your post (or subject or error) didn’t you understand?”

7. Each one mentioned is now defined by looking it up.

8. The person can now be Method 4ed relating to his post to be sure all is clean and there are no upsets.

Note: Where the person has just had an accident or ethics action it may be necessary to delay the action until the person is calmer or not so upset as the action can be a heavy distraction if the person is hurt or frightened and will not be successful.

IT WILL BE FOUND THAT LAZINESS, INACTIVITY, SLOWNESS AND ERRORS ON A POST OR IN USING A SUBJECT TRACE TO MISUNDERSTOOD KEY WORDS.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 AUGUST 1972RREVISED 8 JULY 1974Remimeo(Translate to (Revision in this type style)EuropeanLanguages) (Reissued 24 October 1974as a Tape Course Series)

Word Clearing Series 42R

Tape Course Series 10

METHOD 4 NOTES

Too generalized a question in using Method 4 defeats its use and can restimulate a person badly.

Example: “Is there anything in college you didn’t understand?” That of course is just plain ridiculous as a question. “Have you ever heard anything you didn’t understand?” would be similarly silly.

BREAK DOWN THE MATERIALS

When doing Method 4 you have to break down the materials (put them into small separate units) in order to ask questions.

Example: We have Papers 1 & 2, both on the same subject. The wrong question for Method 4 would be “Is there anything in Papers 1 & 2 you didn’t understand?” and not even give him the papers to see! The right way to do it would be to take Paper I and break it down into its obvious sections, give the person Paper 1 and let him look at it. Point to its 1st section and say, “Is there anything you didn’t understand in this section?” while watching the meter. Then point to next section, do the same. Finish Paper 1. Then go to Paper 2 and do it the same.

A person has to know what he’s being asked about and has to be thinking of it when asked the question.

TAPES

Just as it would be ridiculous to ask, “Have you ever misunderstood anything you ever read?”, it would be silly to ask, “Did you ever have a misunderstood on Tape?”

The right way is to take the tape and put it on a machine and play a bit of it. And ask, “Is there anything in the first section of this tape you didn’t understand?” while watching the meter. Then high speed the tape forward to another area and do the same. Thus the tape is covered.

The following Definition of Grammar was taken from the Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage by Bergen and Cornelia Evans, published by Random House, New York, in 1957. (It is not a complete Dictionary and would require another larger dictionary for full word clearing. But it gives American usages of words and phrases, which could be important as Dianetics and Scientology are written in American English.)

It was sent to me by an SHSBC Student who found its definition of Grammar was very helpful to other students.

This definition also tells you why some college or school texts are so ghastly hard to read—they are not in standard English. It also tells you why, in 1950, the head of the English Department in an American University hailed Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health as marking a new era of scientific writing. One reason is that it was written by a writer, not a professor. The other was that it was written in the English that was in use.

But read the definition:

GRAMMAR

GRAMMAR is a systematic description of the ways in which words are used in a particular language. The grammarian groups words that behave similarly into classes and then draws up rules stating how each class of words behaves. What classes are set up and how the rules are phrased is a matter of convenience. A grammarian is free to classify his material in any way that seems reasonable to him. But he is never free to say that certain forms of speech are unacceptable merely because there is no place for them in the system he has designed.

THE CLASSES

Most grammarians are interested in a number of languages. As a rule they set up classes that are useful in handling many languages but that may have very little meaning for a particular language. For example, the distinction between the dative him and the accusative him is important in the Indo-European languages generally. But in a grammar designed solely to teach English, this distinction does not have to be made. Similarly, there is an etymological or historical difference between the English gerund in -ing and the participle in -ing. But it is sometimes impossible to say whether a given word is a gerund or a participle; for example, in journeys end in lovers meeting. For this reason, some grammarians prefer to handle these forms together under one name, such as “participle” or “-ing”.

The familiar terms of classical grammar are defined in this dictionary for the convenience of persons who need to use these concepts. But a much simpler classification, based on the structure of present-day English, is employed in all the discussions of usage.

THE RULES

In order to say how words are used, the grammarian must examine large quantities of spoken and written English. He will find some constructions used so consistently that the exceptions have to be classed as errors. But he will also find competing, and even contradictory, constructions, which appear too often to be called mistakes. He must then see whether one of these expressions is used by one kind of person and not by another or in one kind of situation and not in another. If he can find no difference of this sort he accepts the two constructions as interchangeable. In this way he assembles a body of information on how English words are used that may also show differences, such as those between one locality and another, or between spoken and written English, or between literary and illiterate speech. Studies of this kind are called “scientific” or “descriptive” grammars. This is a relatively new approach to the problems of language and the information brought to light in this way is sometimes surprising.

The first English grammarians, writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did not attempt to describe the English of their day. On the contrary, they were attempting to “improve” English and they demanded Latin constructions which were not characteristic of English. They objected to the expression I am mistaken, because if translated into Latin this would mean I am misunderstood. They claimed that unloose must mean tie, because un is a Latin negative. They objected to the “double negative” which was good Old English, and also good Greek, but not good Latin.

These eighteenth century rules of prescriptive grammar have been repeated in school books for two hundred years. They are the rules for a curious, Latinized English that has never been spoken and is seldom used in literature, but that is now highly respected in some places, principally in scientific writing. It should be recognized that these rules were not designed to “preserve” English, or keep it “pure”. They were designed to create a language which would be “better” simply because it was more like Latin. Dryden, writing in the seventeenth century, said: “I am often put to a stand in considering whether what I write be the idiom of the tongue or false grammar and nonsense, couched beneath that specious name of Anglicism, and have no other way to clear my doubts but by translating my English into Latin and thereby trying what sense the words will bear in a more stable language.” One result of this double translation was that Dryden went through his earlier works and rewrote all the sentences that had originally ended in a preposition or adverb. A generation later, Swift complained that the English of his day “offends against every part of grammar”. Certainly this is blaming the foot because it doesn’t fit the shoe!

Because some people would like to write the language of the textbooks, the entries in this dictionary not only tell what standing a given construction has in current English but also explain how the rules of the prescriptive grammarian would apply, wherever the rules and standard practice differ. But in such cases the rules are never simple, and the person who has to use this type of English may feel that it would be easier to follow Dryden’s example and write in Latin first.

THIS BOOK

The grammar entries in this book are designed for persons who speak standard English but who may be confused about certain isolated points. The entries are arranged so that the answer to a particular problem can be found in the least possible time. But anyone who wishes to make a systematic study of English grammar, using this book, can do so by starting with the entry parts of speech and following the references to more and more detailed discussions of each concept.

I have been engaged in a study of applications of tech to illiteracy and illiterate or semi-literate populations and found some simple levels of approach.

I investigated U.S. AID educational efforts and data to find out why they failed. For instance, in one project, the U.S. spent over one million dollars to educate 105 persons from an “underdeveloped” country of low literacy and surveyed it later to find that none of the data taught was in use and that no progress had been made by the person or the country as a result.

Using their data and my own personal investigation in the same country, I evaluated the situation and found they had not consulted the existing scene before or during the program. Their training was for a sophisticated environment.

The country of the program is just emerging from a nomadic level civilization into agricultural and the agriculture done is extremely primitive, erodes whole plains with non-contour plowing and doesn’t even know about irrigation.

To these people they taught the highly complex technology of the electronic age!

The people went back home, found no computers whatever, listened to the goats and sat down and did nothing.

U.S. AID had no explanation for this. But give them credit—the students liked the U.S. and U.S. AID did honestly survey and admit the failure, a rare humility.

From this point I did a local study and found that instead of computers these people needed—guess what?

Before they saw any need of any technology, they had first to see that there was any reason to get any work done at all!

Further, their cultural pattern contained dishonesty as a virtue! This is antipathetic to basic morale no matter what the culture and so they were in a cultural attitude or pattern which kept them sad, depressed and miserable! So they couldn’t work.

The program, then, had to (a) recover honesty to increase morale, (b) introduce acknowledgement for accomplishment, (c) establish the possibility that one could work, (d) introduce statistics so that something existed that could be acknowledged and (e) establish bonuses for statistics so that acknowledgement could be real and stay that way.

These items are all very elementary and simple portions of our basic technology:

So in U.S. AID Programs there was a skipped gradient in culture (nomad-agrarian skipped to electronic-nuclear) and a skipped gradient in training—Why learn when there is no reason to work? So why be literate? Or study?

Any sophisticated technical layout would break down in the hands of these people—and does.

But this program would lift them up. Then they would have some reason to study.

Factually, one cannot just sail into a culture blind and bash around with no data. It is costly and it accomplishes very little.

A basic knowledge of Man is essential to any improvement in any area of the human race.

Word Clearing is a brilliant repair tool for an Org to raise Org production and delivery quality.

In order to get any area or individual producing, there are three simple actions which will handle (per LRH 5 Sept 71 Qual Tape):

1. Make sure the person has actually READ the material he needs to know.

2. If he has read the material and cannot apply it, WORD CLEARING, in its different forms, used correctly, with good TRs will clean up any and all misunderstoods.

3. The only other thing which can prevent application is that the person needs to be DRILLED and have CONFRONT RAISED on that area or action. Drilling on Admin post actions is just as important as drilling Tech post actions.

If the above actions do not handle, though carefully done, the person has out Ethics and needs Ethics handling and probably Integrity Processing.

This does not eradicate the need for Executive inspections, evaluations and handlings for non-working installations, but when the Why is found and stops removed, simply taking each staff member in the area and putting him through the 1, 2 and 3, in that order, will really create a working installation.

This applies in the area of Tech or Admin.

As the competence of Word Clearing increases, so does the traffic for it and additional Word Clearers must be added to handle the traffic so that staff, Internes and students do get good service.

Qual really is the staff’s best friend if they use loads of no flub Word Clearing and Qual correction actions to get them through, being successful and producing.

Word Clearing is no minor technology to be used sometimes. It is a major technology which can make or break an Org.